CAT/C/36/D/256/2004
Page 4
considered that the complainant hadn’t made out that the Iranian authorities were aware that
he was helping his sister and brother-in-law; it found it unlikely that the complainant had
been sentenced to 140 whiplashes, as the penalty in Iran for the charges against him was a
monetary fine. As to the effectiveness of translation, the Board pointed out that the
complainant had had the possibility of making corrections through counsel. The Board
concluded that the complainant had failed to prove that he risked persecution if returned in
Iran.
2.7 The complainant appealed to the Aliens Appeal Board with a request to have his
counsel replaced and to have an oral hearing. On 6 October 2003, the Board denied both of
his requests. He then hired a private lawyer, who submitted supplementary information on the
complainant’s political activities in Iran. The complainant himself also submitted
supplementary documents, including a letter from SPI, in which it was stated that he had been
a political activist, as well as a medical certificate that he had suffered from a heart attack,
which could have emanated from the stress to which he was exposed. On 8 June 2004, the
Board rejected the appeal on the ground that the complainant was not credible. The Board
stated, inter alia, that he had had the opportunity to correct the translations from the second
interview, that he couldn’t prove that he had been sentenced to 140 whiplashes and his claim
that he was politically active had not been mentioned earlier in the proceedings.
2.8 On 21 June 2004, the complainant lodged a new application with the Aliens Appeal
Board. He presented what he purported to be original documents, allegedly proving that his
request to change the verdict to a monetary fine was denied by the Iranian authorities. These
consisted of a decision, of 18 September 2001, rejecting his application for conversion and a
note of criminal record about him. The Board did not consider the documents trustworthy and
rejected the application on 15 July 2004.
2.9 On 19 July 2004, the complainant lodged a second new application with the Board,
with a clarification on his political activities for the previous five years. The Board found that
there was no proof that he had been involved politically in Iran and rejected his application
on 1 September 2004. On 9 September 2004, in his final application, the complainant
presented what he purported to be original summonses from the Iranian authorities inviting
him to attend the general court in Shiraz. He requested the Board to postpone its decision
pending the issuing of a medical certificate. On 13 September 2004, the Board denied the
complainant’s request and, on 17 September 2004, rejected his application.
The complaint
3.1 The complainant claims that the State party would violate article 3 of the Convention if
he is returned to Iran, as he has a real and personal fear of being tortured and ill-treated upon
return, on account of his previous political activities. The sentence of 140 whiplashes will be
imposed upon him. He submits that the real reason behind this verdict was the authorities’
desire to persecute him for his political activities.
3.2 In the complainant’s view, the domestic authorities failed to exa mine his case and his
statements objectively and impartially. He claims that the documents provided by him to
prove his sentence were authentic and that those demonstrating his involvement in the SPI
were not accepted. As to the judgement of his sentence to 140 whiplashes, he claims that
during the interviews he stated that he had never received a written verdict and that the