CAT/C/29/D/204/2002
page 4
were related to the fact that he was suffering from the effects of torture which he had suffered
during his arrests and interrogations in Iran.1 Although the author provided information on
further documents taken into account by the Government in assessing the complainant’s case,
this information was provided to the author under the Swedish Secrecy Act and, at the
complainant’s request, is not provided herein.
2.6
In a decision dated 21 March 2002, the Government decided that there was no reasonable
risk that the complainant would be subjected to torture if returned to Iran. On 10 April 2002, the
complainant was released from custody by decision of the Minister of Justice, who decided to
stay the enforcement of the complainant’s expulsion until further notice.
2.7
According to the complainant, the use of torture is common in Iran. Police, the
Revolutionary Guard and other Security Services frequently practise grave forms of torture, with
various methods during investigations. Torture is also used in the prison system after a verdict.
In this regard, the complainant refers to reports from the Secretary-General’s Special
Representative on Iran, the United States State Department’s Country Reports on Human Rights’
and Amnesty International. The Iranian Parliament itself, he states, has found that torture and
excess of violence are used in Iranian prisons.
The complaint
3.1
The complainant claims that there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be
in danger of being subjected to torture on return to Iran and, therefore, Sweden would be
violating article 3 of the Convention if he were returned there. The complainant acknowledges
that he provided the Swedish authorities with contradictory information on his involvement in
political activities but argues that this was due to the psychiatric effects of torture. In addition,
he argues that he never provided contradictory information on the incident surrounding the
guards in the park and that this is his main argument for believing that he will suffer torture if
returned to Iran. He claims that this makes him an enemy of the State and the punishment for
such an act, whether it is accidental or not, is capital punishment.
3.2
The complainant emphasizes that he is not claiming that the risk of execution would
amount to a violation of article 3, but contends that because of the nature of the crime he would
surely be subjected to torture prior to execution, possibly with the intention of extracting
information from him on his membership of illegal organizations. The complainant also claims
that the incidents which occurred in his family, including the fact that two of his close relatives
were murdered and two of his brothers were forced to seek asylum abroad, corroborate the fact
that the authorities were looking for him and as he could not be found took its revenge on his
family.
3.3
The complainant claims that all domestic remedies have been exhausted and that this
complaint has not been submitted for examination under any other procedure of international
investigation or settlement.