CAT/C/63/D/673/2015
Iranian authorities. He also claims that the Federal Administrative Court had merely stated
in general terms that there was no risk of reprisals for his political activism against the
Government of Iran.9
3.4
In the complainant’s view it is clear that he has now attracted the attention of the
Iranian authorities because of his political activities, even if that was not previously the case.
In this regard, he mentions five cases in which the Committee found that the Swiss
authorities would be violating article 3 of the Convention if they returned the complainants
to Iran. 10 The complainant asserts that, in those five cases, the State party likewise
challenged the credibility of the complainants’ statements, drew attention to contradictions
and inconsistencies and claimed that they would not face any threat if they were deported.
He further asserts that, in those five cases, as in his case, the State party claimed that the
complainants’ political activity during their exile had been relatively low-profile and
conducted only for the purpose of obtaining a residence permit. The complainant therefore
believes that his personal risk of being subjected to torture on return to Iran should be
regarded as real.
State party’s observations on the merits
4.1
On 20 October 2015, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the
communication. It recalls the facts and the proceedings undertaken by the complainant in
Switzerland with a view to obtaining asylum. It notes that the asylum authorities have duly
considered the complainant’s arguments. It states that the communication does not include
any new information that would invalidate the asylum authorities’ decisions.
4.2
The State party points out that, under article 3 of the Convention, States parties are
prohibited from expelling, returning or extraditing a person to another State where there are
substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to
torture. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent
authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations, including, where applicable,
the existence in the State party concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass
violations of human rights. With regard to the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997)
on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22 of the Convention, the State
party adds that the author must establish the existence of a personal, present and substantial
risk of being subjected to torture upon return to his or her country of origin. The existence
of such a risk must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. There
must be grounds for describing the risk of torture as “substantial” (paras. 6 and 7).11 The
following elements must be taken into account to ascertain the existence of such a risk: any
evidence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in the
country of origin; any claims of torture or maltreatment in the recent past and independent
evidence to support those claims; the political activity of the author within or outside the
country of origin; any evidence as to the credibility of the author; and any factual
inconsistencies in the author’s claims.12
4.3
The State party points out that the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant
or mass violations of human rights does not, in itself, constitute sufficient grounds for
determining that a particular person would be subjected to torture upon return to his or her
country of origin. The Committee must establish whether the complainant is “personally” at
risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would be returned.13
Additional grounds must be adduced in order for the risk of torture to qualify as
9
10
11
12
13
4
The complainant refers, in particular, to the decision of 28 January 2014.
Azizi v. Switzerland (CAT/C/53/D/492/2012), Tahmuresi v. Switzerland (CAT/C/53/D/489/2012), X.
v. Switzerland (CAT/C/53/D/470/2011), Khademi et al. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/53/D/473/2011) and
K.N., F.W. and S.N. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/52/D/481/2011).
See general comment No. 1, paras. 6–7.
See general comment No. 1, para. 8.
See K.N. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/20/D/94/1997), para. 10.2.
GE.18-12643