(zRANSZ.ATroN) THE FACTS The: facts of the case as submitted by the applicant can be summariseA as follows : The applicant, a Turlcish national bom on 10 January 19! 8 in Sandilli, Afyon province, is a tloor layer residing in Wabern, Bern ~Canton .. Switzerland. He is represented befi3re the Commission by Mr. Christian Trenkel, a lawyer in Bern . 1. The applicant claims that from 1975 onwards, while still resident in ,Tmrkey, he was active in various political organisations and newspapers, for instance a newspaper publi.shed by the TKF-ML party (Türk R :omünist Paitisi Marksistleninist) until expelled from the party in 1977 for ideologicai re,asons .Subsequently,hewasactivistinthepro-Kurdisïasoc:ation ASK-DEF: and a passive member of the teachers' trade union TOB-DEIt . In 1979 theapplicant held ajob in Izmir in . a food factory where he was elected shop steward . During a strike, the arme3 forces cleared the factory and the applicatt wa s imprisoned for a forn!.ight. In 1979 the applicant apparently joined the YDOF (Yurtsever Devrimei Genclik Demekleri Federasyonu), becoming a member of its executive comntittee in 1980. In this capacity, he brganised irt August 1980 at Denizli a political meeting which, althouglt legal, was disrupted by the MIT security service . When later summoned, he failed to appear. I After Sepæmber 1980 thearmy prohibited all political activities . Notwithstanding the prchibition, in October 1980, the applicant took part in the organisation of a demonstration at Ekisehir against ttte military regime. The army put down the demonstration and the applicant was coinpelled to go into hiding in varioustowns . II On 1 February 1981 -the applicant left Turkey via Yugoslavia and Italy for Swits.erland, arriving there'on 15 Febntary 1981 . On 29 July 1981 he applied for asylum in Swiwerland throngh a lawyer . He was questioned in this connection by the Bern police om6 October 19111 and again by the Federal Police Office en 11 May 1982 and 28 January 1983 .Whilehisapplicationforai ;ylum was being considered, the applicant iook par t in various events drawing attertion to the political and human rights situation in Turkey . In 1982 he set up the "Association of Turkish Democratic Workers" which regularly particl :pated in demonstrations against the milimry Government . lù January 1983 the association put on-a politically inspired play . In spring:1983 the applicant 265 founded a "Turkish Refugees Committee" which, during a "refugee week"' (19-25 June 1983), showed video films on a public square in Bem about the politicall trials in Turkey. On 5 June 1984 the applicant accused the Turkish Government of human rights violations in a Swiss radio broadcast about Yilmaz Güney's film "The! Wall" . III On 22 April 1983 the Federal Police Office rejected the applicant's request for' asylum on the ground that he had made contradictory statements on essential points! and submitted facts which were inconsistent with general experience . The Federal Police Office observed in particular that in the course ôf his, various examinations the applicant had made contradictory statements concerning hisl membership of various political organisations . Since he was not a teacher, it wasi unlikely that he had been a member of a teachers' trade union, and it was inconsistent, with general experience that he could have belonged to so many and varied political' groups. The applicant had also made contradictory statements about having previously held a passport, and in the same connection about a trip to the Federal, Republic of Germany in 1977 . On 9 May 1983 the Federal Aliens Office decided that the applicant must leave! Switzerland by 18 June 1983 . On 25 May 1983 the applicant appealed against the decision of 22 April 198 3 by the Federal Police Office . On 18 July 1985 the Federal Justice and Police Department dismissed the applicant's appeal and ordered him to leave Switzerland by 15 September 1985 .TheFederalDepartmentconsideredthattheaplicanthadindedmadea : number of contradictory statements about his membership of various poliüca lgroups . Furthermore, the applicant's claim that he was a victim of political persecution was contradicted by the fact that his departure from Turkey had been in order and that the Turkish passport service, which undoubtedly had a "black list" ~ of wanted individuals, would not have failed to consult that list. Lastly, the Federal l Department considered that for the Swiss authorities, only the circumstances existin gwhentheaplicantleftTurkeywererelevant . According to substantiated information, persons having unsuccessfully requested asylum abroad would not suffer adverse consequences on returning to Turkey . On 3 September 1985 the applicant applied to the Federal Justice and Police Departments for a review of the decision of 18 July 1985, founding inter alG'a on Article icle 3 of the Convention and invoking grounds of asylum based on events subsequent to his departure from Turkey (Nachfluchtgründe) . The execution of the expulsion order was thereupon suspended . 266 On 10 October 1985 the Federal Department refused the request. It held that the facts subminedby the applicant were not "new developraents" warranting a review, and that in any case even an examination of the merits of the arguments put forward would be unlikely to alter the contested decision . ]a noted that ocdy a foreigner having, been reduced to a "refugee situation" daring his stay in Switzerland becoraes a"refitgee on the spot", whereas someone hcving himself brought about this s'ituazion doa :s not. All persons temporarily resident in Swilzerlandcac: exercise their basiic democratic rights, bnt an asylum applicant must expect to have his application rejectei, and it is accordingly in his interest to iestrict his political activities in Switzerland so that they do not come to the altention of the authorities in his country of origin . Otherwise he must take the consequences . 'rhe Federal Department ordered the applicant to leave Switzerland by 30 October 1985 . On 2'i Oetnber the Swiss Red Cross, actin,g on behalf of the applicant, requested an extension cf the time limit because of the efforts which were being made to enable him to go to a third country . 7'he deadline was then further extended to 15 7anuary 1986 . On 24 October 1985 the applicant's wife applied to the'furkish Consulate in Bem for an identity card Por their daughter born on 18 March 1985 :The officials gave her to understand that the applicant was a criminal and a.dvised her to seek a divorce. At the end of October 1985, Mrs . A . returned to Turkey with her daughter. On 30 October 1985 the Swiss Red Cross applied to the amhorities on the applieant'r behalf for permission to reside in Bem Canton . 7'he Red Cross was informed on 5 March 1986 that the request had been refused . In a letter of 20 December 1985 to the Bern cantonal authorities, Mr . S. of the Swiss Central Refugee Aid Bureau, acting as represencative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in German-speaking Switzerland, declared that the applicant's case was one cf special hardship (Hdrte.fall) . He was of the opinion that the applicant would be proseculed in Turkey for his political activities and risked sevetal years' imprisonment and also torture . On 13 January 1986 the applicant lodged a fnrther application for review . In particular, he submitted an extcact dated 15 November 1985 from the municipal register of 1 April 1981 of the village a-f M . in Turkey stating that, according to a report by the martial law authorities, he was wanted and had absconded . On 3 Febiuary 1986, the Federal Justice and Police Departments rejected the application. The decision indicated that the applicant's wife had re.tume2l home of her own free v+ill, and th:at theapplicamt's efforts to secure admission to a third countrywere as yet unsuccessful . The Department fùrther notecl that the extract from the ntunicipal register produced by the applicant merely showed that tie waswanted on 1 April 1981, without however giving the reasons . Nor did it contain any evidence that the applicant's rights under the law of asylom would be jeopardised on his return. 'rhe Department consic .ered the applicanl's request of 13 January 1986, lodgid two dayr, before expiry oP the time limit for i .eaving Switzerland, to have been 267 aimed purely at obstructing the execution of the order. This conclusion wa âcorcoboratedbythefacthatheaplicant,inhisaplicationtotheE¢ropeanCom= mission of Human Rights dated 13 January 1986, himself expressed the view that his request for review would be unsuccessful. Lastly, the applicant had been awaré since the middle of November 1985 of thedocument submitted as a "new factor"~ in support of his request-for review . Consequently, the Department ordered the ap i plicant's immediate expulsion. The applicant's complaints may be summarised as follows : The applicant, relying on Article 3 of the Convention, complains of his immi= nent deportation to Turkey . As he has no valid travel document, he is banned froni entering a third country. In the event of expulsion, he would therefore be sent tn Turkey. Deportation would lay him open to prosecution on political grounds, to a long and severe prison sentence and to torture . He asserts in particular that he is wantei . dinTurkeyforhavingengagedinpoliticalactivitiesathome and abroad and for; having applied for political asylum in Switzerland, both these acts being punishable by severe penalties under Articles 140 to 142 and 159 of the Turkish Criminal Code .a Consequently, he would be puuished for having professed political opinions . As a result, he would be deprived of his most elententary rights of defence and probably! subjected to torture . The Turkish authorities presumably knew about the applicant'sf wife who had allegedly been told by the consular authorities in Bern on 24 October 1985 that her husband was a criminal, that the Turkish authorities were aware of his activities abroad and that she should seek a divorce . PROCEEDINGS (Extract ) The application was introduced on 13 January 1986 and registered on 15 January 1986. On 16 January 1986 the Secretary to the Commission informed the respondent Government of the submissionof the application and of a summary of its objects, in accordance with Rule 41 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure . On 20 January 1986the Rapporteur drew up the Report prescribed in Rule 40; of the Rules of Procedure. , On 24 January 1986 the Commission decided in accordance with Rule 42- para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure to give notice of the application to the res-! pondent Government and to invite them to present written observations on ther admissibility and merits, by 22 March 1986 . On 3 February 1986 the President of the Contmission decidedto indicate to the, respondent Government, in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure, thatl it would be desirable in the interest of the parties and the proper conduct of the{ 268 ceedings before it not to deport the applicant to Tur&ey before the Commission I hadthe oppo rtunity to make a more tnorough examination of the application at next session (3-14 March 1986). - - -Cn12Febiuary1986theGovernmentsubmitedtheirabservationsonth e nissibili.ty and merits of the application . The applicant replied in a memorial da:ted February 1986 . On 10 March 1986 the Rapporteur submitted a. second report (Rule 40 of the of Procedure) . On 11 March 1986 the Commission decidedto invite the parties to'submit further observations orally on Ihe admissibility and merits of the application (Rule 42 para. 3 (b) of the Rules of Procedure) at a heating set for 14 April 1986 . The Commission also decided to reiterate in the meantimc . the inclication given to the Govermnent in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules o:F Procedure . TIIE LAW 1 . The applicant alleges that if deported to Turkey he would face prosecution on political grounds, a long and seve.re priscn sentence and torture . By deporling )rim to Turkey the Sviiss Government would, in his opinion, comm.it a breach of Article 3 of the Convention which provides that : "No one shall be subjcct.ed to torture or to inhtmtan or degrading trealment or punishment. " The Government contest the applicant's allegation . 2. T'he Commission observes that according to its established case-lâw ; the Convention does not secure any right of residence or asylum in a Slate of which one is not anational (ef . e.g. No . 1802/62, Dec . 26.3.63, Yearbook 6 pp : 462, 478) . Deporation is not as such arrong thr, matters governed by the Convent :ion (No. 7256/75, Dec. 10.12.76, D .R. 8 p . 161) . Consequently, a deportation order is not in itself cantrary to the Canvention .TheComisioneve :^theless recalls that according to its established case-law , the de?ortation cf a foreigner might, in exceptional eircumstances, raise an issue under Article 3 af the Convention where there is éeriouo reason to believe that the deport^e would be liable, in the country of destination, to trealment prohibited by this provision (No . 8581/79, Dec. 6 .3 .80,D.R. 29pp, 48, 54) . The Commission must therefore consider whether the present casediscloses special circumstances of this kind and whether there are serious grounds-for believing that the applicant would be Lable to treatment prohlbited by Article-3 . 269 3. The applicant claims that prior to his departure from Turkey in Pebruary 1981 he engaged in political activities as a member of various organisations and as' a participant in demonstrations of a political nature . After arriving in Switzerland, he also engaged in political activities directed against the regime in Turkey . As a result, he would incur a substantial risk of prosecution if deported to Turkey . The Government have noted that the applicant's statements concerning his activities in Turkey were contradictory, that these activities were not corroborated by the applicant's wife or the brother, and that the applicant was able to leave his country legally with his passport . The Government express reservations as to the authenticity and relevance of the document produced in connection with the applicant's second request for review . As to the political activities pursued in Switzerland, the Government observe that they were initially restricted to a small group aüd became more extensive following the rejection of the applicant's request for asylum . According to the Government, an applicant for asylum should in his own interest limit his political activity in the receiving country . Be that as it may, the applicant gave no indication that he would be exposed in Turkey to treatment of such gravity that his deportation would be contrary to Article 3 of the Convention . 4. The Commission notes that there is some uncertainty as regards the applicant's activities prior to his departure from Turkey . Conversely, it is clear that in Switzerland he displayed a critical attitude to the military regime in Turkey. He made public statements on the subject and took part in demonstrations of a political nature . His case was reported in the Swiss press . The Commission has considered whether these activities were such as to create a serious risk of the applicant's being subjected in Turkey to torture or other treatment prohibited by Article 3 . It finds that the documents and evidence submitted by the applicant do not suffice to prove that such a risk exists . The Commission has also considered the applicant's claim that he risks prosecution under Articles 140 and 159 of the Turkish Penal Code, which would metin prosecution for his political activities . The Commission recalls that in an extradition case it concluded as follows : "the rule laid down for example in Article 3 of the European Convention op Extradition, whereby extradition may be refused for a political offence, is not included in the Convention whose compliance the Convnission must ensure ; the fact of granting extradition for a political offence may not be regarded in itself, and in the absence of special circumstances, as inhuman treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention . . . However, if there are reasons to fear that extradition, although requested exclusively for offences undér ordinary law, may be used to prosecute the person concemed in breach of the speciality mle for political offences or even simply because of his politicâl 270 opinions, the Commission cannot nile out itmnediately dte possibility of a violation under Article 3 of the Convention" (No. 10308/83, Dec . 3 .5.83, DR. 36 pp. 209, 232 and 233) . The Commission finds these considcrations applicable muratis mutamüs to a e where the person concerned complains not of extradition but of deportation iich lie alleges would lay him open to prosecution on political grounds . In the unmissien's opinion, the iinposicion of a long and severe sentence would raise an ue under Article 3. In this respect, it is not enough to eugue that there is a possiity of prosecution : the applicant must prove that there is a definite and serious risk bein;; prosecuted and senienced to such a penalty . In point of fact, the applicant s nol shown such a risk exists in the present case . In particular, he has laot monstrated that prison sentences have been passed re .enfly in Turkey in otber ailar cases . In conclusion, the Conunission holds that the spplicant has not demoiistrated It in the event of deportation to his own country he would he liable to treatment ohibited by Article 3. It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within ; meaning of Article 27 para . 2 of the Convention . For these reasons, the Coernnission DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE 271