CAT/C/30/D/201/2002
page 3
Facts
2.1
The complainant states that he and his wife are related to PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan,
who also comes from his home town, Ömerli, in the Kurdish part of Turkey. The complainant’s
grandfather is a nephew of Abdullah Öcalan’s mother. The grandmother of the complainant’s
wife is a sister of Abdullah Öcalan’s father. He contends that he belongs to a politically active
family and that he himself is so active.
2.2
In 1997, the complainant joined the pro-Kurdish HADEP political party. He also
collected information for a human rights organization, IHD, about alleged human rights abuses
by Turkish authorities. He alleges that he was arrested several times and ill-treated in connection
with these activities, and that the Turkish authorities sought information from him concerning
the PKK, HADEP and IHD. In May 1998 (after also being approached in 1993 and 1995), he
was allegedly threatened with death if he did not provide this information. His family was also
threatened with harm if he escaped. Thereafter, he left his home village, departed Turkey by
truck on 11 June 1998 and arrived in the Netherlands on 17 June 1998, where he alleges he
continued his political activities.1
2.3
On 18 June 1998, the complainant requested asylum and residence. After an interview
had taken place in the presence of an interpreter, the Secretary of Justice decided, on
8 February 2000, that his request for asylum was manifestly unfounded and, further, denied his
request for residence on humanitarian grounds.
2.4
On 7 March 2000, the complainant lodged an objection to this decision, supplying his
grounds of objection on 24 March 2000. On 6 July 2000, he requested an injunction to prevent
his expulsion. On 24 July 2001, the Hague District Court rejected the request for an injunction
and declared the objection ill-founded. The Court found, inter alia, that there was no indication
that article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms (which has been interpreted to proscribe extradition to a country where an individual
would face torture) would be violated in the complainant’s case, as the complainant had not
shown that he in fact belonged to any categories of persons (such as PKK-activists) who might
be exposed to a higher risk to harassment or intimidation or worse on the part of the Turkish
authorities.
The complaint
3.1
The complainant contends that there are substantial grounds to believe his removal to
Turkey would result in torture or other forms of ill-treatment and would therefore violate
article 3 of the Convention in light of the following factors: his political and human rights
activities in Turkey, his alleged arrests and ill-treatment, his political activities in the
Netherlands, his family relationship to Abdullah Öcalan, and the problems of his family.2
3.2
The complainant refers to a variety of reports in support of his proposition that conditions
in Turkey reveal a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. These
emanate from human rights organizations,3 newspapers4 and a human rights commission of the
Turkish Parliament.5