domestic remedies includes recourse to this specific remedy, and whether this requirement is not met if a constitutional complaint is rejected as inadmissible, is immaterial in the complainant’s opinion, since his constitutional complaint was not declared inadmissible by the Federal Constitutional Court in the first place. 5.3The complainant argues that compliance with specific particularities of the German Constitution is not a prerequisite to lodge a complaint under a universal treaty-based procedure, such as the individual complaint procedure under article 22 of the Convention. 5.4Lastly, the complainant submits that the domestic remedies rule must be applied with a certain degree of flexibility, and that only effective remedies must be exhausted. In the absence of a suspensive effect, the constitutional complaint cannot be considered an effective remedy in cases of imminent deportation. Additional observations by the State party on admissibility 6.1On 10 March 2003, the State party submitted its additional observations on the admissibility of the complaint. While conceding that the Federal Constitutional Court did not explicitly state whether the constitutional complaint was inadmissible or ill-founded, the State party reiterates that the wording of the operative part of the Federal Constitutional Court’s decision of 30 August 2002 allowed the inference that the complainant’s constitutional complaint was unsubstantiated and therefore inadmissible. Hence, the complainant failed to comply with the procedural requirements for lodging a constitutional complaint. 6.2The State party objects to the complainant’s argument that a constitutional complaint has no suspensive effect, arguing that such effect can be substituted by means of an urgent application for interim relief, under section 32 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act. Decision on admissibility 7.1At its thirtieth session, the Committee considered the question of the admissibility of the complaint and ascertained that the same matter had not been, and was not being, examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. Insofar as the State party argued that the complainant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, since his constitutional complaint did not meet the procedural requirements as to the substantiation of the claims, the Committee considered that, as an international instance which supervises States parties’ compliance with their obligations under the Convention, it is not in a position to pronounce itself on the specific procedural requirements governing the submission of a constitutional complaint to the Federal Constitutional Court, unless such a complaint is manifestly incompatible with the requirement to exhaust all available domestic remedies, laid down in article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention. 7.2The Committee noted that the complainant had lodged a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court on 22 July 2002, which had been dismissed by the Court by formal decision dated 30 August 2002. In the absence of a manifest failure to comply with the requirement in article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, the Committee was satisfied that, in the light of the circumstances of the case and in conformity with general principles of international law, the complainant had exhausted all available domestic remedies. 7.3Accordingly, the Committee decided on 30 April 2003, that the complaint was admissible. State party’s observations on the merits 8.1By note verbale of 24 February 2003, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the complaint, arguing that the complainant had failed to substantiate a personal risk of torture in the event of his deportation to Turkey. 8.2By reference to the Committee’s general comment No. 1 on the interpretation of article 3 of the Convention, the State party stresses that the burden is on the complainant to present an arguable case for establishing a personal and present risk of torture. It considers the complainant’s Kurdish origin or the fact that he sympathizes with the PKK insufficient for that purpose. 8.3The State party submits that the different versions about the severity of the torture allegedly suffered by the complainant after his arrest in Turkey raise doubts about his credibility. While he had first stated, before the Federal Agency, that he had been insulted and thrown into dirty water, he later, before the Wiesbaden Administrative Court, supplemented his allegations to the effect that he had been lifted up with his hands tied behind his back and a stick placed under his arms. 8.4For the State party, the author failed to prove his PKK membership, or any remarkable political activities, during exile. In particular, the letter by Mr. F.S. merely stated that the complainant had participated in cultural and political activities in Germany, without specifying any of them. Moreover, the State party argues that the mere claim to be a PKK member is not as such sufficient to substantiate a personal danger of being tortured, in the absence of a prominent role of the complainant within that organization. Out of the more than 100,000 persons proclaiming themselves PKK members during the “self-incriminating campaign” in 2001, not a single case of subsequent persecution by Turkish authorities was reported. 8.5While conceding that participation in PKK training for a leadership role might subject a party member to personal danger upon return to Turkey, the State party denies that the complainant ever participated in such training; he did not raise this claim during his hearing before the Wiesbaden Administrative Court in 1999. It considers the complainant’s explanation that he wanted to keep this participation confidential, as required by the PKK, and because PKK membership was punishable under German law, implausible, because: (a) the contradiction between the alleged confidentiality of his training and the fact that the complainant had allegedly been introduced to a wide Kurdish community at the Halim-Dener-Festival; (b) the unlikelihood that the complainant would consider an imminent danger of torture the “lesser of two evils” compared to a conviction for PKK membership in Germany; (c) the fact that, despite the dismissal of his asylum claim by the Wiesbaden Administrative Court on 7 September 1999, he did not reveal his participation in PKK training on appeal to the Higher Administrative Court of Hessen; and (d) the obvious need to supplement his