light of factors relating to the author's own personality. The State party therefore stresses that there must be
foreseeable, real and personal risk that the author will be tortured in the country to which he is returned.
4.7
The State party recalls that during its consideration of other communications from Turkish citizens, the
Committee had stressed that the human rights situation in Turkey was disturbing, particularly for PKK militants,
who were frequently tortured. However, in the cases where the Committee found there had been a violation of
article 3 of the Convention, it had previously noted that the authors were politically active within the PKK or
had been detained and tortured before their departure, or else that they had additional evidence to support their
allegations. On the other hand, in the cases where the Committee had not found any violation, it had
concluded that no legal action had ever been taken against the author for specific incidents or that legal action
had not been taken against him but against members of his family, or else that after leaving Turkey, the author, or
members of his family, had not been either intimidated or wanted by the police and had stopped collaborating
with the PKK.
4.8
In the case in point, the State party first draws attention to earlier decisions of the Committee, according to
which the risk of arrest is not on its own and in itself evidence of a risk of torture. The author must also prove
that the act of desertion and his political activities give rise to a real risk of torture if he returns.
4.9
The State party emphasizes the length of time taken by the author to apply for asylum and considers
that it is not consistent with the attitude of someone who fears he will be tortured if he returns to his country. In
fact, it believes that the author only applied for asylum after being arrested by the Fribourg police on 8 July
1995 in order to avoid immediate deportation.
4.10
The above considerations have also led the State party to surmise that the author had not in fact left
Turkey on 2 June 1995 as he claimed. The author's file reveals that he obtained a visa for Switzerland on 15
June 1992 but there is no entry in his passport to confirm that he returned to Turkey when this visa expired.
In the circumstances, and in the light of information showing that passport controls upon entering Turkish
territory are quite strict, the State party concludes that the author actually arrived on Swiss territory on 15 June
1992, not on 2 June 1995, and lived there illegally until he applied for asylum. The assertions that the author
was working for the PKK in 1993 therefore have even less credibility, as he was probably living in Switzerland at
the time.
4.11
The author's fear of arrest because of his political activities, particularly since some of his comrades
who took part in the same demonstration had been arrested, is inconsistent with the author's own statements
that they used code names when taking part in the demonstrations. It would follow that neither the author nor
his comrades could in fact know each other's names.
4.12
The State party also stresses that the author cited in his communication three new arguments that he
had never raised during his application for asylum, even though nothing prevented him from doing so. These
arguments are that his home village was notorious for its links with the PKK, that the police allegedly searched
his parents' home in Turkey and that two of his male and two of his female cousins were killed because of their
activities within the PKK. Aside from the fact that it is surprising they were not raised earlier, these arguments
do not prove that the risk of torture cited by the author exists, insofar as the author left his home village in 1990
and never talked of problems he may have had there in the various places where he lived afterwards. Likewise, in
addition to the fact that there is no evidence to prove that members of his family were killed, the persecution and
killing of some members of his family would not entitle the Committee, on the basis of its past practice, to
conclude there is a risk of torture to the author.
4.13
With regard to the new documents produced by the author concerning his refusal to be drafted, the State
party points out that the statement from the mayor of Calgi is of questionable value. Aside from the fact that
this kind of statement is not within the prerogatives of a village mayor, the document contains no concrete
indication of how its author obtained the information, which leads the State party to believe that it is a