documents when arriving in Sweden because he had been forced to give the documents to the
smuggler that brought him there, and that Iranian authorities twice had made inquiries about him at
his family's house. On 11 August 2000, the Aliens Appeals Board rejected his application for
asylum.
2.6 On 1 September 2000, the petitioner lodged a new application for asylum and a residence permit
with the Aliens Appeals Board. The petitioner submitted further information, stating that his father
and brother had been released from detention and that the Iranian authorities had made further
inquiries about his whereabouts. He referred to an appeal from the Iranian Refugee Council of
Stockholm that expressed concerns about his security should he be deported to Iran. Finally, he
invoked humanitarian reasons for a residence permit based upon a statement from a psychiatrist
affirming that he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, acute depression, strong memories of
previous torture and was suicidal. Again, on 5 October 2000, the Aliens Appeals Board rejected his
application.
2.7 On 7 November 2000, the petitioner lodged a new application with the Aliens Appeals Board,
and submitted information that was intended to clarify the information he had provided at the earlier
stages of his case, together with a new statement from a psychiatrist about his post-traumatic stress
disorder and the serious risk of suicide. The Aliens Appeals Board rejected the application on 12
December 2000.
The complaint
3. Counsel claims that the petitioner fears that if returned to Iran, he will be arrested for his
participation in the anti-Government demonstrations in Sanandaj in February 1999. He also
considers it plausible that the Iranian authorities will consider his case in the context of his previous
activities in the early 1990s, and conclude that he is working for Kurdish independence and against
the Iranian authorities which, from the regime's point of view, is a serious political crime and treated
accordingly. Counsel adds that there exists a consistent pattern of human rights violations by Iranian
authorities, in particular against political and religious opponents, and there is overwhelming reason
to believe that the petitioner will be subjected to torture or other inhuman treatments if returned to
Iran.
State party observations on admissibility
4. In its observations of 29 March 2001, the State party does not contest the admissibility of the
communication, as domestic remedies were exhausted with the Aliens Appeals Board's decision of
5 October 2000. However, the State party points out that the petitioner, under chapter 2, section 5b,
of the Aliens Act, may lodge a new request for a resident permit with the Aliens Appeals Board at
any time, provided that new circumstances are adduced that could call for a different decision.
The petitioner's comments on the State party's observations
5. In a letter of 24 April 2001, counsel reiterates the points made in his initial communication. He
further notes that his main objection to the migration authorities' action in the case is their incorrect