CAT/C/23/D/107/1998
page 5
was only arrested and interrogated with regard to his son. The leniency shown by the Turkish
authorities to the author’s father is completely inexplicable. Even if the cousin did not denounce
the author’s father, the fact remains that the father also made shoes for the PKK or at least
allowed them to be made in his workshop. Thus, the father’s behaviour would doubtless have
justified the opening of a criminal investigation against him since he had, as the owner of the
workshop, given his support to a terrorist movement. In fact, the father has never been bothered
on these grounds by the national authorities.
4.5
Moreover, the author stated that his cousin had been sentenced to five years’
imprisonment and that he had informed the police that the author had made the shoes. However,
the author has never produced an extract from the judgement in question, which, if it had really
existed, could have proved that he had been his cousin’s accomplice.
4.6
With regard to the future persecutions to which the author would allegedly risk being
exposed on returning to his country, the State party informs the Committee that, following the
request of the ODR dated 3 April 1998, the Swiss embassy in Ankara made inquiries regarding
the situation of the author in Turkey. By letter of 21 April 1998 the embassy confirmed that the
police had no political file on the author and no record of his having committed a criminal
offence, that he was not wanted by the police or the armed special police at the national or local
level and was not prohibited from holding a passport.
4.7
On the basis of this recent information, the author could surely no longer seriously
maintain that the letter from the Office of the Public Prosecutor in Gazantiep was authentic. The
Swiss authorities were, moreover, convinced that the document was a forgery. Firstly, it was an
internal official letter which would normally not be intended, at least in this form, to be handed
over to the wanted person. Secondly, the quality of the paper used and the absence of any of the
official indications that generally appear on this type of document according to the specialized
service of the ODR, led to the conclusion that the author had had the document forged by friends
or relatives.
4.8.
The author also made contradictory statements regarding the dates and duration of his
alleged arrests in 1994. He firstly stated that the two arrests had taken place in August 1994, and
subsequently in September and October 1994; that they had lasted, respectively, three days and
one day, and then only one day. It is therefore quite likely that the dental damage suffered by the
author was caused by some other incident than that indicated by him, for example an accident at
work. The dental certificate in no way confirms the statements by the author with regard to the
cause of the damage. Moreover, it can be seen from the communication that the author did not
leave Turkey because of these events, which leads one to suppose that there is no causal link
between them and the grounds for the future persecution which the author claims he will suffer if
he returns to his country.
Counsel’s comments
5.1
Counsel reiterates the explanations he had already provided regarding the contradictions
in the author’s statements referred to by the State party. As for the document from the
prosecutor of Gazantiep, the State party seems to suggest that the author asked his relatives to