application of chapter 8, sections 1 and 2, of the Aliens Act.
State party's observations on the merits
6.1 In its observations of 21 June 2001, the State party submits information on the merits of the
case.
6.2 The State party refers to the criteria established by article 3 of the Convention and by the
Committee: first, that the general situation of human rights in a country must be taken into account;
and second, that the individual concerned must personally be at risk of being subjected to torture,
including that such torture must be a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the return of the
person to his or her country.
6.3 With regard to the first criterion, the State party notes that although there are indications that
Iranian society is undergoing changes that may bring about improvements in the human rights field,
the Government of the Islamic Republic is still reported to be a major abuser of human rights.
6.4 In respect of the second criterion, the State party contests that there is a foreseeable, real and
personal risk that the petitioner will be subjected to torture if returned to Iran. It points out that the
alleged factual inconsistencies and shortcomings in the petitioner's account raise serious doubts as
to his credibility and the accuracy of the events he has recounted. The State party refers to the
requirements contained in the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining
Refugee Status (Geneva, 1992), paragraph 205 of which states that the applicant should:
"(i) Tell the truth and assist the examiner to the full in establishing the facts of his
case;
(ii) Make an effort to support his statements by any available evidence and give a
satisfactory explanation for any lack of evidence. If necessary he must make an effort
to procure additional evidence."
6.5 In this regard, the State party states that the petitioner has provided no evidence whatsoever in
support of his claim that he, his father and brother have been arrested, nor has he provided a
certificate or the like concerning his discontinued schooling, or precise information regarding where
he was being detained or the detention and release of his brother and father.
6.6 Furthermore, the State party notes that the petitioner stated before the Swedish Migration Board
that if he were returned he would be held responsible for arranging the demonstration in Sanandaj.
However, upon learning that the Swedish authorities considered this proposition improbable, he
stated that he participated, but did not arrange, the demonstration. The State party in this context also
refers to the petitioner's statement that 20 people were killed during the Sanandaj demonstration,
whereas reports stated that approximately 20 people were killed in demonstrations at that time over
the whole country.
6.7 Regarding the question of how the petitioner thought the Iranian authorities knew about his