CAT/C/65/D/691/2015
conflicting information regarding her relationship with her ex-husband, thus failing to show
that she was exposed to a level of violence that would merit a residence permit.
Furthermore, it considered that one of the letters she had submitted to prove her
membership in the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan was of “low quality”. The Court
also considered that she had not proved that she risked being harmed by the Iranian
authorities, her family or her ex-husband’s family. On an unspecified date, she appealed
that decision before the Migration Court of Appeal. The Court denied her leave to appeal
on 18 December 2014. The expulsion order therefore became executory. She submits that
she has exhausted all available domestic remedies.
2.7
On 9 February 2015, the complainant sought interim measures before the European
Court of Human Rights. On 10 February, that Court, through the Acting President of the
Section, sitting in a single judge formation, decided not to prevent her expulsion. The Court
declared the application inadmissible as, in the light of the material in its possession and
insofar as the matters complained of were within its competence, it found that the
admissibility criteria set out in articles 34 and 35 of the Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights) had
not been met.
The complaint
3.1
The complainant claims that her deportation to the Islamic Republic of Iran would
constitute a violation of her rights under article 3 of the Convention. She claims that there is
a substantial risk that she will be arrested and tortured upon return because of her divorce
and her political affiliation. In particular, she submits that she fears she will be ill-treated by
her ex-husband’s family because he accused her of infidelity and of living with another
man in Sweden. She alleges that her ex-husband’s family has declared that “the family
honour has been disrespected” and that she must be punished, and that her ex-husband has
intimate pictures of her, which may be used as evidence to accuse her of “promiscuous
living” and prostitution. She also submits that she has fears about her own family, as they
have declared that, when she returns to the Islamic Republic of Iran, they intend to punish
her and expel her from the family in order to restore their honour. She also fears the Iranian
authorities, because her ex-husband comes from a very influential and powerful family in
the Islamic Republic of Iran. His father is an imam and he has good contacts with the
authorities, so his testimony will have more value than her own. A guilty verdict is
therefore highly likely if the complainant is arrested and charged in the Islamic Republic of
Iran. The complainant recalls that adultery is punishable under the Islamic Penal Code, 7 and
that the penalty is whipping, stoning or even death. Honour killings and public punishment
take place daily in the Kurdish areas in the Islamic Republic of Iran. 8 She submits that
people who commit honour crimes in the Islamic Republic of Iran are not punished.
3.2
The complainant indicates that the Iranian authorities are not aware of her
membership in the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan, as party members hide their
membership in order to avoid persecution. However, her ex-husband or his family would
reveal her membership to the authorities as revenge for having “dishonoured” them. She
also submits that once the authorities are aware of her membership in the party, she will be
arrested or at least interrogated, which means that she will face torture or sexual abuse, as
that is common practice in the Islamic Republic of Iran. She maintains that, given that the
Iranian authorities have extensive intelligence operations abroad, they may already be
aware of her membership in the party, as she has openly attended party meetings in
Sweden.9 In that context, she refers to a report of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden,
in which it is stated that Kurds who express themselves politically are likely to be arrested,
imprisoned or tortured in the Islamic Republic of Iran. 10 According to a report of the Home
Office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, persons who can show
that they are members or supporters of the party are at risk of persecution and should be
7
8
9
10
The complainant refers to articles 63 and 102 of the Islamic Penal Code.
No further information is provided in that regard.
The complainant attaches pictures of her with “very well-known” representatives of the Democratic
Party of Iranian Kurdistan taken at meetings held in Sweden.
No further information is provided on the report.
3