CAT/C/37/D/282/2005**
Page 4
review of this decision, which was denied on 16 September 2003. On 25 March 2004 she
filed an application for consideration under section 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act (humanitarian and compassionate grounds application, ‘H&C’), providing
new evidence that she had been employed as the Supervisor of Nursing and an Instructor at
the University of Mahal Salas Tonekabon. She also submitted a pre-removal risk assessment
(‘PRRA’) application on 13 August 2004, and subsequently submitted new evidence in the
form of letters from her daughter and sister, and a court summons dated 22 December 2003
from the Tehran Islamic Revolutionary Court, requiring her to attend court on 6 January 2004.
The H&C and PRRA applications were denied by the same officer and notified to the
complainant on 16 August 2005. An application for leave and judicial review of the PRRA
and H&C decisions was filed in the Federal Court on 25 August 2004. Her application for
stay of removal was denied on 26 September 2005.
2.6 The complainant was scheduled to be deported to Iran on 27 September 2005. The
application for leave to apply for judicial review of both the PRRA and H&C decisions was
subsequently dismissed on 1 December 2005.
The complaint
3.1 The complainant argues that she would be imprisoned, tortured or even killed if
returned to Iran, in violation of articles 3 and 16 of the Convention. This is based on the fact
she is a known perceived opponent of the Iranian regime and the fact a passport was applied
for on her behalf, thereby alerting the Iranian authorities of her imminent return. There is a
court summons in her name, and as she missed the court date, based on objective country
information there will most likely be a warrant for her arrest. Counsel refers to the United
Kingdom Country Report from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate Home Office
from October 2003, which states that the traditional court system in Iran is not independent
and is subject to government and religious interference. The report states that trials in the
Revolutionary Courts, where crimes against national security and other principal offences are
heard, are notorious for their disregard of international standards of fairness. Revolutionary
Court judges act as prosecutor and judge in the same case, and judges are chosen for their
ideological commitment to the system. Indictments lack clarity and refer to undefined
offences such as ‘anti-revolutionary behaviour’. Counsel claims that those accused of ‘antirevolutionary behaviour’ are dealt with unfairly once detained: although the Constitution
prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention, there is reportedly no legal time limit on
incommunicado detention, nor any judicial means to determine the legality of the detention.
Further, female prisoners are repeatedly raped or otherwise tortured while in detention, and
there are widespread reports of extra judicial killings, torture, harsh prison conditions, and
disappearances.
3.2 Counsel submits a medical certificate dated 22 June 2005 based on the complainant’s
Personal Information Form and a clinical interview and exam performed on 17 June 2005,
which concludes that there is evidence of multiple scars on her body. Significant wounds are
on her face and scalp, and are consistent with a mechanism of blunt trauma as described by
her. The irregular depressed scar on the top of her head is said to be consistent with her
description of a lesion that was left open and sutured at a later date. The scars on her arms
and legs are more non-specific but are consistent with blunt trauma. The bilateral toenail
onycholysis is typical for post traumatic nail injury and could certainly have resulted from