participation in the demonstration, he replied before the Swedish Migration Board that he thought
he had been filmed from a helicopter. The State submits that it is unlikely that a person in a moving
crowd of thousands of people can be identified in this way. When presented with this statement, the
petitioner added other ways in which he might have been identified.
6.8 The State party states that the petitioner gave contradictory information about where his father
and brother were detained, saying at first that they were detained in Ourmia, and then in Sanandaj.
He also changed his account in regard to the name of the friend that was shot during the
demonstrations in 1999. According to the State party, the author has also been inconsistent about
whether his family was politically active. Before the Swedish Migration Board, the petitioner stated
that apart from his dead brother, the family had not been politically active, whereas in his
communication to the Committee he stated that the family had been politically active for years.
Furthermore, the State party refers to the petitioner's statements before the Swedish Migration Board
that at first his passport was destroyed in Turkey, and later that he returned his false passport to the
smuggler who assisted him in travelling to Sweden.
6.9 With regard to the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder, the State party finds that it is of
importance to the overall assessment of the petitioner's credibility. It notes that the underlying
medical documentation seems to be based solely on statements given by the petitioner. The petitioner
allegedly carries no physical evidence of the alleged torture and, according to himself, there were no
visible injuries or need for medical attention at the time of the alleged beating. In addition, the
petitioner's mental problems were mentioned either at the previous hearings, or in the application
to the Swedish Migration Board, or in the first appeal to the Appeals Board.
6.10 On the basis of the above, the State party doubts the petitioner's account on several points, and
therefore his general credibility. With reference to communication No. 149/1999, A.S. v. Sweden,
the State party considers that the petitioner has not provided sufficient information for the burden
of proof to shift.
6.11 Thus, the State party does not subscribe to the petitioner's presentation of the facts. Even if
deemed credible, the State party considers that the petitioner has still not made sufficiently clear that
he runs the risk of being arrested or tortured if returned to Iran. It states that it is obvious that the
petitioner was never in any leading position in the opposition against the regime and not even a
member of Komala, and he has not claimed to have been registered by the authorities on account of
his political sympathies, but rather stated that he was not an object of interest to the authorities until
the demonstrations in February 1999.
6.12 The State party concludes that the petitioner has failed to substantiate his claim that he would
run a personal, real and foreseeable risk of being tortured if returned to Iran, and that an expulsion
order therefore would not violate article 3 of the Convention.
The petitioner's comments to the State party's observations
7.1 With regard to the State party's observation that the petitioner said he was identified in the
demonstration by a helicopter, counsel points out that the petitioner meant to say that he could have