CAT/C/71/D/807/2017
examined their allegations and the evidence adduced in depth. Nevertheless, the dismissal of
the appeal by the Federal Administrative Court upheld the order to deport the complainants.
2.12 In April 2016, a friend of X travelled to the Islamic Republic of Iran and managed to
find and bring back X’s driver’s licence in order to establish and prove her identity. On 7
July 2016, the Federal Administrative Court, to which X had referred the matter, stated that
the driver’s licence was not proof of X’s identity and, moreover, that the question of identity
was not the only reason for the rejection of the asylum application.
2.13 On 27 September 2016, the complainants submitted a communication to the
Committee in which they requested interim measures, as their deportation to the Islamic
Republic of Iran was imminent.
Complaint
3.1
The complainants assert that they would be at risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran, as they have already been
arrested and tortured, in June 2011, for having provided aid to the Kurdish community. They
consider that their return would constitute a violation by Switzerland of its obligations under
article 3 of the Convention.
3.2
The complainants also fear that they might be arrested and detained again, as the
Iranian authorities have access to all the information about X that was seized from her
fiancé’s house, namely the USB stick and the photographs taken and articles written by her.
In addition, they invoke the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran and the
treatment by the Iranian authorities of the Kurds living near the border with Iraq. In this
context, the Iranian authorities consider that the humanitarian aid provided by the
complainants to the Kurdish community constitutes a political activity.
3.3
Moreover, the complainants consider that the State party did not properly examine
X’s account of her sexual abuse, which included rape, overlooking the fact that torture
victims with post-traumatic stress disorder are often unable to recount traumatic events, and
based its decisions on the incorrect information provided in the two anonymous letters of 10
June and 17 September 2013, in which the complainants were accused of giving false names
to the Swiss authorities and courts. The complainants claim the right to be fully heard on
these points and challenge the proceedings before the Federal Office for Migration – now the
State Secretariat for Migration – and the Federal Administrative Court.
State party’s observations on the merits
4.1
On 16 August 2017, the State party submitted its observations on the merits, without
contesting the admissibility of the complaint.
4.2
The State party considers that, overall, the complainants’ allegations lack consistency
and credibility, particularly with regard to the activities carried out to help Kurds living in
poverty (collecting clothes and money from friends and handing out these donations during
trips to the Kurdish region); the arrest; the sexual abuse, including rape, of X during the her
detention; X’s allegation that she heard her fiancé’s mother fall when she was blindfolded;
the addition of facts to the medical report that she had not mentioned at the hearings; and
issues of identity. With regard to the allegations that the Federal Administrative Court relied
largely on anonymous reports that X had a sister living in Switzerland, the State party submits
that this fact was never substantiated, as the alleged sister refused to undergo a DNA test.
Moreover, the complainants were reportedly unable to prove their identities, as the Swiss
authorities did not recognize drivers’ licences or school certificates as identity documents.
4.3
The Federal Administrative Court noted that the complainants’ behaviour in relation
to the presentation of identity documents gave further cause for doubt as to their credibility.
At his first hearing, Y stated that the smuggler had taken his identity documents; however,
according to his statements at the second hearing, his identity documents were confiscated
when he was arrested, and he had given only his birth certificate to the smuggler. In their
comments of 1 June 2015, the complainants argued that they would not be able to obtain
identity documents in the Islamic Republic of Iran, but, in an annex, they submitted a lengthy
email from X’s former employer with a recently issued employment certificate attached.
4
GE.21-12363