CAT/C/54/D/540/2013

United Nations

CAT/C/54/D/540/2013

Convention against Torture

and Other Cruel, Inhuman

or Degrading Treatment

or Punishment

Distr.: General

2 July 2015

English

Original: French

GE.15-11115 (E) 270715 280715

*1511115*

Committee against Torture

Communication No. 540/2013

Decision adopted by the Committee at its fifty-fourth session

(20 April-15 May 2015)

Submitted by:

C.S. (represented by counsel, Caroline

Meraldi, Centre de contact-Suisse.sse.s-

Immigré.e.s/SOS Racisme)

Alleged victim:

The complainant

State party:

Switzerland

Date of complaint:

15 March 2013 (initial submission)

Date of present Decision:

8 May 2015

Subject matter:

Deportation of the complainant to Turkey

Procedural issues:

None

Substantive issue:

Risk of torture upon return to country of

origin

Article of the Covention:

3

CAT/C/54/D/540/2013

GE.15-11115

2/10

Annex

Decision of the Committee against Torture under article 22 of

the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or

Degrading Treatment or Punishment (fifty-fourth session)

concerning

Communication No. 540/2013*

Submitted by:

C.S. (represented by counsel, Caroline

Meraldi, Centre de contact-Suisse.sse.s-

Immigré.e.s/SOS Racisme)

Alleged victim:

The complainant

State party:

Switzerland

Date of complaint:

15 March 2013 (initial submission)

The Committee against Torture, established under article 17 of the Convention

against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,

Meeting on 8 May 2015,

Having concluded its consideration of communication No. 540/2013, submitted

on behalf of C.S. under article 22 of the Convention,

Having taken into account all information made available to it by the

complainant, his counsel and the State party,

Adopts the following:

Decision under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention

1.1 The complainant is C.S., a Turkish national who was born on 1 January 1982. He

claims that his deportation to Turkey would constitute a violation by Switzerland of

article 3 of the Convention. He is represented by counsel, Ms. Caroline Meraldi

(Centre de contact-Suisse.sse.s-Immigré.e.s/SOS Racisme).

1.2 Under rule 114 of its rules of procedure, 1 the Committee requested the State

party, on 21 March 2013, to refrain from expelling the complainant to Turkey while

his communication was under consideration by the Committee. On 22 March 2013, the

State party informed the Committee that it would accede to that request.

The facts as presented by the complainant

2.1 The complainant, a Turkish national of Kurdish ethnicity, was born on 1 January

1982 in the province of Mardin, Turkey. In 1993, when he was 11 years old, he joined

the armed struggle being waged by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and left

__________________

* The following members of the Committee took part in the consideration of the communication: Ms.

Essadia Belmir, Mr. Alessio Bruni, Mr. Satyabhoosun Gupt Domah, Mr. Abdoulaye Gaye, Mr. Jens

Modvig, Ms. Sapana Pradhan-Malla, Mr. George Tugushi and Mr. Kening Zhang.

1 This corresponds to former rule 108 of the Committee’s rules of procedure (CAT/C/3/Rev.4).

CAT/C/54/D/540/2013

3/10

GE.15-11115

Turkey for a PKK camp located near Erbil in Iraq, where he received military training.

Following his departure from Turkey, his father and an uncle, both PKK combatants,

were killed in a clash with the Turkish armed forces in Mardin. Between 1993 and

1996, the complainant was involved in fighting.2 Having been injured during an air

raid by the Turkish army,3 he was transferred to the United Nations-operated camp at

Mahmur, in Iraq, where he continued to provide assistance and logistical support to

the PKK.

2.2 In late 2004, the complainant was detained by the United States armed forces,

who put pressure on him to join their ranks. Knowing that he could not return to

Turkey, he eventually agreed. After a period of military training in Mosul, Iraq, he

took part in fighting under the American armed forces, which used him as a human

shield.

2.3 The complainant attached two medical reports, dated 13 October 2009 and 5

June 2012. The first report, issued by the University Hospital of Zurich, states that he

had been seriously affected by war experiences in 2004 when fighting with the

American army in Iraq. During that time, he was made to walk, totally unprotected, in

front of American tanks and he witnessed suicide attacks on a daily basis, only

narrowly escaping one such attack himself. He witnessed the death of 110 people in a

single day and also lost his friends, who “melted” before his eyes in a bombing. The

medical report concludes that the complainant exhibits symptoms of post-traumatic

stress disorder. The second medical report, issued on 5 June 2012 by the psychosocial

centre in Fribourg, reaches the same conclusion.

2.4 Finding himself in an unbearable situation, the complainant decided to leave Iraq

and, to that end, contacted an uncle living in Istanbul, who enlisted and paid a

smuggler with whom the complainant left Iraq overland on 1 September 2005. He

travelled to Tehran, Amman and then Geneva under the name of Temel Karasu on a

borrowed Turkish passport that he later returned to the smuggler.

2.5 The complainant arrived in Geneva on 21 September 2005. The next day, he

applied for asylum at the registration centre in Basel, Switzerland.

2.6 Out of fear that he would have to admit to having killed human beings while

fighting for the PKK, which is considered a “terrorist” movement by Turkey and the

European Union, and because of his extremely fragile mental health, the complainant

initially told the Swiss authorities that he had never received military training from the

PKK and had merely performed various chores for the party at the camp in Iraq.

2.7 By decision of 2 March 2007, the Swiss Federal Office for Migration rejected

the complainant’s application for asylum on the basis, inter alia, that his version of the

events was implausible. The Office found that the account of his activities within the

PKK was not credible and challenged his claim that he had not received even basic

weapons training. The Office observed that thousands of persons had returned to

Turkey without being systematically persecuted by the authorities, and the fact that he

had been a refugee in Iraq did not, in itself, entail a real risk of persecution were he to

return to Turkey. On 5 April 2007, the complainant appealed the decision.

2.8 In its ruling of 13 January 2009, the Federal Administrative Tribunal rejected the

appeal, noting in particular that the complainant had left Turkey at the age of 11 and

__________________

2 The complainant attached photographs of himself in military uniform. Initially, he claimed he had

never engaged in fighting or received military training. See paras. 2.6 and 2.8 of the present

decision.

3 The complainant attached a medical certificate dated 17 February 2009 and issued by a doctor in

Fribourg, Switzerland, which states that X-rays revealed the “presence of foreign metallic objects in

the posterior thorax and upper right arm. These foreign objects are entirely consistent with

shrapnel.”

CAT/C/54/D/540/2013

GE.15-11115

4/10

had not been back since. The Tribunal therefore found it implausible that he would be

sought by the authorities. Moreover, at his hearing, the complainant claimed that he

had never received military training or engaged in fighting. Testimony cited by the

complainant established that he had never been involved in fighting and that his

refusal to do so was the reason behind his departure. His later claims to the contrary

were not deemed to be credible. The Tribunal thus decided that there was no particular

reason for the Turkish authorities to view him as dangerous or suspicious, even though

he, like thousands of others, had spent time at the Mahmur camp in Iraq. The Tribunal

also observed that the complainant had never engaged in any political activities that

would support the hypothesis that he was a wanted man. As to the risk of reprisals

owing to the fact that the complainant is a relative of PKK activists, the Tribunal

noted that, in Turkey, there is no rule or practice whereby a family shares

responsibility for a crime committed by one of its members. However, the authorities

may put pressure on, or take reprisals against, family members of political opponents

if the wanted person or political opponent concerned has significant involvement in an

illegal political organization. In the present case, the Tribunal held that no such threat

could be established inasmuch as all the relatives of the complainant who had been

PKK members had been dead for between 10 and 15 years, with the exception of an

uncle who had been sentenced to life imprisonment in 2002. No reason was seen why

the Turkish authorities would use that to target the complainant. The Tribunal further

noted that relatives of the complainant, namely his mother and several of his siblings,

continued to live in Turkey without experiencing any problems and no members of his

family had fled the country.

2.9 On 20 February 2009, the complainant requested the Federal Office for

Migration to review its decision of 2 March 2007 (see para. 2.7). The Office, treating

this as a second asylum request, summoned the complainant to a hearing on 29 April

2009 and subsequently rejected the request by decision of 5 June 2009. On 9 July

2009, the complainant appealed that decision.

2.10 In its ruling of 18 February 2013, the Federal Administrative Tribunal rejected

the appeal. It began by considering whether the alleged facts warranted reviewing its

decision of 13 January 2009, before addressing whether the complainant’s health,

which was cited in support of his request, could justify a review of the 2 March 2007

decision of the Federal Office for Migration. The Tribunal reaffirmed the conclusions

of previous decisions regarding the implausibility of the claims and, while recognizing

that the complainant suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, found that the

condition could not be linked to his experiences as a PKK member and was more

likely triggered by events that had taken place in Iraq while he was working for the

American armed forces. The events, which had occurred in a third country, would thus

not have the feared impact if he were to return to Turkey. The Tribunal further

observed that the complainant could receive medical care in Turkey to preserve his

physical and mental integrity. The appeal was therefore rejected.

2.11 The Federal Office for Migration then set a deadline of 19 March 2013 for the

departure of the complainant, who claims to have exhausted the domestic remedies

available to him.

The complaint

3.1 The complainant claims that his deportation to Turkey would constitute a

violation by the State party of article 3 of the Convention. He contends that, as a result

of his undeniable involvement with the PKK, 4 there are substantial grounds for

believing that he would be subjected to torture if returned to Turkey.

__________________

4 The complainant has attached photographs of himself in combat uniform, along with five

CAT/C/54/D/540/2013

5/10

GE.15-11115

3.2 The complainant claims to have taken part in the armed struggle of the PKK

when he was still young (between the ages of 11 and 14). He witnessed traumatic

events, particularly acts of war, which had a serious impact on his mental health. 5 In

addition, X-rays have revealed the presence of foreign metallic objects deemed to be

consistent with shrapnel in the complainant’s arm and chest.6

3.3 The complainant comes from a family known for its support of the PKK. His

father, two of his uncles and four of his cousins were killed in combat, increasing the

risk of his being targeted by the Turkish authorities. As the complainant himself is

known to, and has attracted the attention of, the authorities,7 he is personally at risk of

being subjected to acts of torture in the event of his return.

State party’s observations on the merits

4.1 On 12 September 2013, the State party submitted its observations on the merits.

It noted that the complainant had merely reiterated to the Committee the reasons he

had invoked before the national authorities, without providing any new evidence that

might justify a review of the decisions taken by the Federal Office for Migration. The

State party referred to the finding of the Federal Administrative Tribunal, which

concluded that, as the complainant had left Turkey at the age of 11, had never been

engaged in armed fighting and had not been back since, it did not seem plausible that

the authorities would be looking for him or harbour suspicions about him. Moreover,

all his relatives who had been active within the PKK had died, with the exception of

an uncle who was in prison.

4.2 The State party reiterated that, according to article 3 of the Convention, States

parties are prohibited from expelling, returning or extraditing a person to another State

where there exist substantial grounds to believe that he or she would be subjected to

torture. Recalling the criteria established by the Committee in its general comment

No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of

article 22, which require the complainant to prove that he or she runs a personal,

present and substantial danger of torture if deported to his or her country of origin, the

State party submits that the Committee has already had occasion to examine

communications in which complainants of Kurdish origin claimed that they would be

at risk of being subjected to torture should they be returned to Turkey. On those

occasions, the Committee noted that the human rights situation in Turkey was of

concern, particularly with regard to PKK militants. It concluded, however, that a given

complainant would face a real and personal risk of torture upon return to Turkey only

where additional individual elements could be established, in particular the extent of

their political activities within the PKK, the existence of any criminal charges against

them and whether they had been subjected to torture in the past.8

4.3 The State party contends that the complainant has not submitted any individual

elements showing that he faces a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture if

returned to Turkey. He mentions traumatic events that reportedly had a profound

impact on his mental health. He also cites the presence of foreign objects consistent

__________________

testimonies by persons presenting themselves as former PKK combatants who met the complainant

at the Mahmur camp.

5 The complainant attached several medical certificates attesting to symptoms of post-traumatic

stress disorder and bouts of depression.

6 See footnote 3 above.

7 The complainant attached a testimony dated 20 August 2010 and signed by the mayor of the village

of Yardere, who maintains that he is often questioned about the complainant, his whereabouts and

his activities, and says that he was recently summoned in that connection by the gendarmerie

command in the village of Konakli.

8 See, inter alia, communications No. 431/2010, Y. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 21 May 2013,

and No. 373/2009, Aytulun and Güclü v. Sweden, decision adopted on 19 November 2010.

CAT/C/54/D/540/2013

GE.15-11115

6/10

with shrapnel in his arm and chest. According to the State party, the complainant has

never claimed that these psychological and physical problems are the result of acts of

torture committed in Turkey. The medical reports that he has submitted state that these

problems stem from events experienced during the war. The reports do not mention

signs, such as injuries, that would be relevant under article 3 of the Convention.

According to the medical report of 13 October 2009,9 the complainant’s nightmares

and other psychological problems started in 2004, when the Americans entered Iraq,

and later worsened when he was in Switzerland. Those events, which occurred in a

third country, are not relevant to assessing the risk of torture if he is returned to

Turkey. There is no indication that the complainant has been tortured in Turkey in the

past.

4.4 With regard to the complainant’s political activities, the State party refers to his

claim that he joined the armed struggle of the PKK at age 11 and was involved in

fighting between 1993 and 1996, before being transferred to the Mahmur camp in Iraq,

where he continued to provide material and logistical support to the PKK. At the end

of 2004, he was allegedly detained by the American army and, after a period of

military training in Mosul, took part in fighting with the American army. The

complainant does not claim to have provided support to the PKK since his arrival in

Switzerland in 2005.

4.5 The complainant’s political activity within the PKK in Turkey dates to the

distant past. He allegedly engaged in fighting more than 15 years ago, when he was

still a child (between the ages of 11 and 14). Moreover, he had only minor

involvement and that was only between 1993 and 1996. The complainant has failed to

demonstrate the relevance of these facts to his current situation and their relation to

the Turkish authorities’ current interest in him for activities that happened so long ago

and were so minimal. This is corroborated by the fact that no judicial proceedings are

under way against the complainant and there is no indication that he might be arrested

or tortured in the event of his return.

4.6 As to his activities within the PKK, the complainant initially stated that he had

never received military training or engaged in fighting, but had only performed

various chores at the camp.10 He subsequently retracted those claims and stated that

he had received military training from the PKK, had taken part in the armed struggle

and had been involved in fighting between 1993 and 1996. This retraction was not

deemed by the Federal Administrative Tribunal to be credible, particularly in the light

of testimony that corroborated the complainant’s original statements, indicating that

he was “reserved” and had not taken part in fighting. The factual inconsistencies

between the complainant’s allegations and the testimony given are such that it is

implausible that the complainant’s involvement with the PKK could expose him to

persecution by the Turkish authorities.

4.7 According to the State party, the photographs submitted by the complainant are

irrelevant. In the ones that allegedly show him as a PKK combatant, it cannot be

determined what activity is being engaged in by the persons pictured, while in the

photographs of soldiers serving with the American army in Iraq, which are related to

neither the PKK nor Turkey, it cannot be ascertained who is pictured or when and

where the photographs were taken.

4.8 The State party reiterates that no judicial proceedings are under way against the

complainant and that the statement from the mayor of Yardere to the effect that the

__________________

9 See para. 2.3 of the present decision.

10 Deposition of 27 September 2005, attached to the case file. See para. 2.8 of the present decision.

CAT/C/54/D/540/2013

7/10

GE.15-11115

complainant is a wanted man11 is written in general terms and offers no explanation as

to why he would be of such interest to the authorities.

4.9 With regard to the complainant’s family ties to PKK members, the State party

refers to the conclusions reached by the Federal Administrative Tribunal and contends

that the complainant has failed to demonstrate that he is at risk of reprisals (see para.

2.8). The complainant has not provided proof of close family ties to anyone who is

currently being sought by the authorities. Moreover, he has not demonstrated that his

family, who still live in Turkey, have been harassed by the authorities. According to

his statements, one of his brothers was living in Nusaybin in the province of Mardin

and another was performing his military service at the time the complainant arrived in

Switzerland.

4.10 In the light of the foregoing, the State party submits that there are no substantial

grounds for believing that the complainant would face a real and personal risk of

torture upon return to Turkey. Therefore, his deportation would not constitute a

violation of article 3 of the Convention.

Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations

5.1 The complainant submitted comments on 22 April 2014. He reiterated that he

had received military training and fought in the ranks of the PKK; he maintains that

the contradictions in his account are attributable to his fragile mental state. He had

discussed the nature of his military activities before the appeal authority (the Federal

Administrative Tribunal) in August 2013, but the Tribunal limited itself to considering

only the information presented at his first hearing.

5.2 The complainant claims that the Turkish authorities have PKK combat

photographs in which he appears and which were previously in the possession of

combatants who were subsequently arrested. He argues that his personal situation is

different to that of his family members who have remained in Turkey and have not

been bothered by the authorities, in that he left the country at age 11. He maintains

that, if returned, he would be interrogated by the Turkish authorities about his absence

from the country between 1993 and 2005, the year in which he arrived in Switzerland.

Moreover, his mother and one of his brothers currently live in Kyiv. The complainant

appends an affidavit from his brother dated 16 March 2014, describing how, in the

years following the complainant’s departure, strangers introducing themselves as

“patriots” would question the family about the complainant. In 1997, the Turkish

special forces surrounded and searched the family home in Nusaybin, before arresting

the complainant’s mother and detaining her at an undisclosed location. The family

later learned that she had been taken to the counter-terrorism office, where she was

tortured for three days. After her release, the family reportedly continued to be

harassed to the point that they left Nusaybin for Mersin and, a year later, moved to

Istanbul, where they were again interrogated. In 2003, the family returned to

Nusaybin, where they were subjected to the same harassment and questioning about

the complainant as in the past. In 2011, shots were fired at the family vehicle. It was

then that the complainant’s brother decided to leave Turkey for Kyiv, which is where

he currently lives with his mother. The complainant reiterates that the threat to him

stems, inter alia, from the fact that he left Turkey, unlike his family.

5.3 The complainant adds that, in Turkey, confirmed or suspected PKK members

continue to be at risk of ill-treatment and torture. He maintains that his personal

situation and status as a former combatant must be viewed in the context of the

prevailing political climate in Turkey, and reiterates that he is wanted by the Turkish

authorities because of his family’s reputation and the extended time he has spent

__________________

11 See footnote 7 above.

CAT/C/54/D/540/2013

GE.15-11115

8/10

outside Turkey. He rejects the State party’s argument that it is the level of his

involvement with the PKK that should be the determining factor, asserting instead that

a presumed affiliation with the PKK is sufficient to place someone at risk of ill-

treatment. The complainant states that his family background has not been given

adequate consideration by the Swiss authorities. He repeats that: his father and an

uncle were killed in a clash with the Turkish authorities; another of his uncles suffered

the same fate; one of his uncles has been sentenced to life imprisonment; and four of

his cousins were killed or are missing. Consequently, and by the mere fact that he

belongs to a family of PKK combatants known to the Turkish authorities, the

complainant claims that he is already a suspect in the eyes of the Turkish authorities

and that his life is therefore at risk.

Additional submission by the State party

6.1 On 26 June 2014, the State party contended that none of the above-mentioned

comments from the complainant contained new, relevant evidence regarding his return

to Turkey. As to the political climate in Turkey, the State party notes that Turkey and

the PKK leader, Abdullah Öcalan, started peace negotiations in late 2012 to end the

Kurdish conflict, which has not claimed any lives since February 2013. On 21 March

2013, Mr. Öcalan called for a ceasefire, which was largely respected by both sides in

2013 except for some residual PKK attacks near the end of the year. According to the

Diyarbakir branch of the Human Rights Association of Turkey, the number of reported

cases of torture and ill-treatment fell significantly in 2013. This is an important

consideration for establishing the complainant’s risk of being subjected to torture in

the event of his return.

6.2 With regard to the complainant’s health, the State party has noted the medical

reports submitted and reaffirms its observations on the merits.

Issues and proceedings before the Committee

Consideration of admissibility

7.1 Before considering any complaint contained in a communication, the Committee

must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The

Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of

the Convention, that the matter has not been and is not being examined under another

procedure of international investigation or settlement.

7.2 The Committee notes that the State party has not challenged the admissibility of

the complaint. The Committee considers that the complainant’s allegation under

article 3 has been sufficiently substantiated, declares the complaint admissible and

proceeds to its consideration of the merits.

Consideration of the merits

8.1 The issue before the Committee is whether returning the complainant to Turkey

would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation, under article 3 of the

Convention, not to expel or return (refouler) a person to a State where there are

substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected

to torture.

8.2 In establishing whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the

complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to Turkey, the

Committee must take into account all relevant criteria, including the existence of a

consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in Turkey. The

issue that needs to be determined, however, is whether the complainant runs a personal

risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he would be returned.

CAT/C/54/D/540/2013

9/10

GE.15-11115

8.3 The Committee refers to its general comment No. 1, to the effect that the risk of

torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion.

Although the risk does not have to be shown to be highly probable, the Committee

recalls that the burden of proof normally falls on the complainant, who must present

an arguable case establishing that he runs a foreseeable, real and personal risk. The

Committee also recalls that, as indicated in its general comment No. 1, while it gives

considerable weight to the findings of the State party’s bodies, the Committee may

freely assess the facts of each case in the light of the particular circumstances.

8.4 In this case, the Committee considers that the facts as presented do not permit it

to conclude that the complainant would at present run a real, foreseeable and personal

risk of torture in the event of his return to Turkey. The Committee observes that, on 2

March 2007, the Federal Office for Migration noted inconsistencies and contradictions

in the complainant’s account during his asylum proceedings. On 13 January 2009, the

Federal Administrative Tribunal rejected the complainant’s appeal on the grounds that

it was implausible that he was being sought by the Turkish authorities, particularly

given that: he had left Turkey when he was 11 years old and had not returned since; he

had initially claimed never to have received military training or engaged in fighting;

he had never engaged in any political activities; and all his relatives who had been

active within the PKK had been dead for between 10 and 15 years, with the exception

of an uncle who was serving a life sentence in prison.

8.5 The Committee observes that, on 18 February 2013, the Tribunal, upon

considering a new appeal filed in connection with a second asylum request, reaffirmed

the conclusions of previous decisions regarding the implausibility of the complainant’s

claims and examined whether his health situation warranted reviewing the original

decision issued by the Federal Office for Migration. The Tribunal acknowledged that

the complainant suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, but held that his condition

was the result of events that had occurred in Iraq, when he was working for the

American army; it could not be imputed to Turkey or cited to suggest any danger in

the event of a return to Turkey. The Tribunal also observed that the complainant could

receive appropriate medical care, including psychological support, in Turkey.

8.6 The complainant has not produced any evidence before the Committee to dispute

those conclusions, such as the existence of any criminal proceedings against him, nor

has he claimed to have been subjected to torture or ill-treatment in Turkey. Even if he

had fought in the ranks of the PKK between 1993 and 1996, as he argues before the

Committee, those events date back almost 20 years to when the complainant was just

11 to 14 years old. The Committee is of the opinion that those activities’ limited scope

and remoteness in time, coupled with the facts that no criminal proceedings have been

brought against the complainant in Turkey and that he has not engaged in any political

activities since leaving Turkey, including in Switzerland, indicate that those activities

are not sufficiently relevant for establishing a personal risk.

8.7 The complainant has also referred to war injuries in his arm and chest, which

have been medically established to be consistent with shrapnel wounds. The

complainant has not, however, claimed that these injuries are the result of torture or

ill-treatment by the Turkish authorities; rather, they were sustained during a wartime

bombing by the Turkish army.

8.8 As to the complainant’s health, the Committee recognizes that he suffers from

post-traumatic stress disorder, as medically certified and acknowledged by the State

party authorities. Nevertheless, the Committee notes that, according to the medical

reports submitted, the condition was triggered by traumatic events that the

complainant experienced in Iraq in 2004 and 2005, when he took part in military

operations with the American army. Accordingly, his health situation cannot be

considered as an element in assessing the risk he faces in the event of a return to

CAT/C/54/D/540/2013

GE.15-11115

10/10

Turkey. Moreover, the Committee recalls that the State party has established that

appropriate physical and psychological medical care is available in Turkey. The

Committee has no reason to question those conclusions. The Committee has

previously found that the fact that a complainant suffers from psychological problems

cannot, in itself, be seen as sufficient grounds creating an obligation for the State party

to refrain from expelling him or her.12

8.9 Taking into account all the information made available to it, the Committee

considers that the complainant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate

that he would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture if

returned to his country of origin.

9.

The Committee, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention,

therefore concludes that the return of the complainant to Turkey would not constitute a

breach of article 3 of the Convention.

__________________

12 Communication No. 356/2008, N.S. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 6 May 2010, para. 7.5.