Merits of the complaint
3.1 The author claims that torture is commonly used in Turkey during police interrogations, as has
been confirmed by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment. According to the author, people committing acts of torture are
protected by the 1991 Anti-Terrorist Act and by the courts and tribunals. 3 "This state of affairs will
never change as long as the Turkish Republic is based on the myth of an ethnically homogeneous
Turkish people, sustained despite all proof to the contrary by an army fighting an unwinnable war
that the Turkish economy can ill afford, the cost of which has led to the corruption of the entire
political class". 4
3.2 The first argument put forward by the author is that he comes from a family with close links to
the PKK and whose mere reputation could give him the most serious kinds of problems with the
Turkish authorities, including torture. As emphasized in a court ruling in Stuttgart, Germany,
concerning his cousin F.M., as a member of a family that has suffered deeply from persecution, the
author will certainly be tortured if he returns to Turkey. The risk is real and personal since he has
already been subjected to torture and the Turkish authorities rightly believe that he has helped PKK
guerrillas by doing small favours for them and supporting them.
Observations by the State party on the admissibility and merits of the communication
4.1 The State party did not contest the admissibility of the communication and made observations
on its merits in a letter dated 9 August 1999.
4.2 First, the State party recalls that the existence of a pattern of mass, flagrant or systematic
violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute a sufficient ground for concluding
that a person would be in danger of being subjected to torture if he returned to that country. There
must also be grounds for believing that the author would be personally at risk.
4.3 Furthermore, the State party does not believe the author can claim to be the victim of "deliberate
persecution", defined as government reprisals against the families of political activists. Even though
the author's older brother Y. was wanted for his PKK activities, there had been no contact between
the two of them for over 10 years, according to the author's statements when he applied for asylum.
It is therefore unlikely that the author was wanted by the Turkish authorities at the time of his flight.
As the Committee has already recalled, the fear of persecution must be of a current nature at the time
when the communication is under consideration. 5 Moreover, Y. was killed on 13 February 1995 and
this gives the Turkish authorities even less reason to look for the author. Lastly, with the death of
Y., the author no longer has any family members in Turkey who are active members of the PKK.
Those who might be subjected to "deliberate persecution" are either outside Turkey or dead.
4.4 The State party does not see how the situation of his younger brother V., an asylum-seeker in
Switzerland, whatever his psychological state, can have anything to do with the alleged risks of
torture faced by the author. As for the brother who stayed in Turkey, while he may have changed
his name to avoid persecution, it should be stressed that the author's mother, ex-wife and children
also live in Turkey and have kept the same name. The State party is therefore of the view that the
brother's change of name owes more to the fact that the surname D. is very widespread in Turkey