exile. 10.2The State party contests that the complainant’s expectation to be recognized as a refugee merely on the basis of his conviction for participation in a highway blockage was reasonable. It cites two judgements denying refugee status to asylum-seekers in similar circumstances. 10.3As regards the standard of proof, the State party submits that a complainant should be expected to present the facts of the case in a credible and coherent manner, unlike in the present case. 10.4Lastly, the State party argues that the human rights situation in Turkey has improved significantly. The Turkish Government has demonstrated its intention to facilitate the unproblematic return of former members or followers of PKK and to respect their fundamental rights by adopting the Act on Reintegration into Society on 29 July 2003. At the same time, the scope of application of section 169 of the Turkish Criminal Code was reduced considerably, resulting in the discontinuance of numerous criminal proceedings against PKK supporters. In the past three years, not a single case is reported where an unsuccessful asylum-seeker who returned to Turkey from Germany was tortured “in connection with former activities”. The State party indicates that it would monitor the complainant’s situation after his return. 11.1On 30 January 2004, the complainant reiterates that inconsistencies in his first application for asylum are irrelevant for the assessment of his new claims in the second set of proceedings. His second asylum application was based on his participation in a PKK training course as well as the Turkish authorities’ knowledge of the same. 11.2For the complainant, the State party has conceded that training for a PKK leadership role can place a member at danger upon return to Turkey. It should therefore accept his claim that his activities for the PKK and his introduction as a guerrilla candidate place him at such risk. 11.3As to the reasons for the late disclosure of his participation in the PKK training course, the complainant reiterates that, on the basis of the unanimous jurisprudence of the administrative courts in Hessen, where he resides, he could reasonably expect to be recognized as a refugee on account of his participation in the highway blockage. The diverging jurisprudence of administrative courts in other regions of the State party was either of more recent date or was unknown to him at the material time during the first set of asylum proceedings. 11.4The complainant argues that, in any event, the late disclosure of these activities does not undermine his credibility on the whole. He invokes the benefit of doubt, arguing that he presented sufficient evidence to substantiate his participation in the PKK training course in a credible and coherent manner. 11.5Regarding the general human rights situation in Turkey, the complainant submits: (a) that the armed conflict between the Turkish army and PHH/Kadek forces is ongoing; (b) that, according to the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey, the number of reported cases of torture has increased in 2003 totalling 770; (c) that, despite the reduction of the maximum length of incommunicado detention to four days, torture is still widespread and systematic, although methods such as beating or “Palestinian hanging” have been replaced by more subtle methods which leave no trace, such as solitary confinement or denial of access to clean drinking water and sanitary facilities; (d) that none of the 20 complaints related to alleged cases of torture which had been submitted in 2003 by the “Izmir Bar Association Lawyers’ Group for the Prevention of Torture” were investigated; and (e) that the 2003 Act on Reintegration in Society requires former PKK members to disclose their knowledge about other PKK members and that persons refusing to disclose such information are often subjected to ill-treatment by the authorities. 11.6The complainant concludes that there are no sufficient safeguards to ensure that he would not be tortured upon return, either during initial interviews by the police or if he refuses to cooperate with the Turkish authorities by disclosing information on the PKK. 11.7The main proceedings concerning the complainant’s application to reopen asylum proceedings are still pending before the Administrative Court of Frankfurt. In the absence of suspensive effect, these proceedings would not stay his deportation, if the Committee decided to withdraw its request for interim measures. Since it is unlikely for the Frankfurt Administrative Court to order the reopening of asylum proceedings, after having rejected the complainant’s application for interim relief, the only means to prevent his expulsion would be a final decision of the Committee, with a finding of a violation of article 3. State party’s further observations 12.1On 15 March 2004, the State party confirmed that the Administrative Court of Frankfurt had not taken a decision on the complainant’s appeal against the Federal Agency’s decision of 6 February 2002 not to reopen asylum proceedings and that this appeal has no suspensive effect. Although the complainant was free to formulate another application for interim court relief, such application would have little prospects of success unless it was based on new facts. 12.2The State party recalls that it has complied with the Committee’s request not to expel the complainant pending a final decision on his complaint, despite the final rejection of his first asylum application, the rejection by the Federal Agency to reopen asylum proceedings and the dismissal by the Frankfurt Administrative Court of his request for interim relief. Against this background, the State party requests the Committee to adopt a decision on the merits of the complaint at its earliest convenience. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 13.1The issue before the Committee is whether the forced return of the author to Turkey would violate the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 13.2The Committee must decide, pursuant to paragraph 1 of article 3, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the