CAT/C/22/D/112/1998
page 5
nevertheless been able to describe in detail the appliance which produced the
electric shocks and the way in which it had been used, even though, in his own
words, he had been blindfolded during the torture. In his communication,
being aware of this contradiction, he claims that he had imagined the physical
causes of the pain and had given a very general description of them. In that
connection, he maintains that the Swiss authorities have completely ignored
the normal functioning of memory. Irrespective of the validity of that
objection, it should be recalled that the Swiss authorities had taken account
of a large number of other inconsistencies in casting doubt on the author's
credibility.
4.5
On 28 May 1991, after the security forces had found his cousin,
the author had allegedly been released right away. The CRA had concluded
therefrom, in its decision of 17 January 1996, that the Turkish authorities
had not been interested in pursuing the author since only N.D. had been of
interest to them. In its decision of 21 April 1992, the ODR had considered
that the author would not have been released if the Turkish security forces
had really suspected him of having supported the PKK. In any event, judicial
proceedings would have been initiated against him and he would have been
detained for longer than 14 days. In no circumstances would he have been
released on the very day when N.D. was found.
4.6
Another point was that the author and his wife had, according to their
statements, legally obtained identity cards on 9 July 1991, i.e. after the
arrest. That would have been unlikely in the case of a person who was
genuinely sought by the Turkish information service since he would have been
in danger of again being arrested at that time. In reply to that argument by
the ODR, the author had stated in his appeal to the CRA of 10 September 1993
that he had not obtained the identity cards himself, but had obtained them
through a certain Mehmet Jeniay, who was allegedly on good terms with the
Pazarcik authorities. The CRA considered that that new explanation was
irrelevant, in the light of the author's statements at his previous hearings.
4.7
In his application for review of 25 April 1996, the author had
transmitted documents (indictment for accepting or soliciting bribes and
forgery, judgement concerning Mahmut Yeniay) intended to demonstrate that
Mahmut Yeniay (or Mehmet Jeniay), an official in the identity card office in
Pazarcik and known for his corruptibility and irregularities when issuing such
cards, had indeed issued the identity card in question. In its decision of
12 August 1996, the CRA had noted the following inconsistencies in that
connection:
(a)
The criminal proceedings against Mahmut Yeniay had been still
pending at the time when the identity cards were issued. It is difficult to
imagine that he might still have been able to issue such documents in complete
freedom, especially since he had been imprisoned for one month shortly before;
(b)
On the identity card submitted to the ODR, the name of the issuing
official is not that of Mahmut Yeniay;