CAT/C/50/D/431/2010 Turkey in the near future.17 In this regard, the Committee observes that the complainant claims to have been subjected to continuous surveillance, harassment, short-term arrests and persecution until her escape to Switzerland in 2008, but has failed to provide elements which would show that this would amount to torture. Moreover, although she claims that authorities “apparently” suspected her of having taken over her sister’s activities in the political underground movement, she has not presented any evidence that she has ever been summoned for interrogation or has been indicted for such suspected involvement with the PKK; neither has she supplied any evidence corroborating her claim that the police has searched for her at her parents’ home since her escape to Switzerland. The Committee also notes that the complainant has never claimed that her family members living in Istanbul are being persecuted in connection with her sister’s and her own escape to Switzerland. Furthermore, it is uncontested that the complainant herself has not been sentenced, prosecuted for, or accused of, any crime in Turkey; that she has not been politically active in Switzerland; and that she has not been cooperating with members of the PKK either in Turkey or in Switzerland. 7.8 The Committee takes note of the information submitted by the parties on the general human rights situation in Turkey. It notes the information presented in recent reports that, overall, some progress was made on observance of international human rights law, that Turkey pursued its efforts to ensure compliance with legal safeguards to prevent torture and mistreatment through its ongoing campaign of “zero tolerance” for torture 18 and that the downward trend in the incidence and severity of ill-treatment continued.19 Reports also indicate that disproportionate use of force by law enforcement officials continues to be a concern 20 and cases of torture continue to be reported.21 However, the Committee notes that none of these reports mention that family members of PKK militants are specifically targeted and subjected to torture. As to the complainant’s allegation that she would be arrested and interrogated upon return, the Committee recalls that the mere risk of being arrested and interrogated is not sufficient to conclude that there is also a risk of being subjected to torture.22 7.9 In the light of the above considerations, the Committee considers that the facts as presented do not permit it to conclude that the complainant’s return to Turkey would expose her to a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that her removal to Turkey would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 8. The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, concludes that the deportation of the complainant to Turkey would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. [Adopted in English, French and Spanish, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic, Chinese and Russian as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.] 17 18 19 20 21 22 See, for example, communication No. 245/2004, S.S.S. v. Canada, decision adopted on 16 November 2005, para. 8.4. United States Department of State, “Turkey 2012 human rights report”, p. 5. European Commission, “ T urkey 2012 progress report” (10 October 2012), p. 19. Available from http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2012/package/tr_rapport_2012_en.pdf . Ibid., pp. 19 and 72. See United States Department of State, “Turkey 2012 human rights report”. Communication No. 57/1996, P.Q.L. v. Canada, views adopted on 17 November 1997, para. 10.5. 15