CAT/C/63/D/750/2016
The complainant rented another shop in Tehran, where he was also active politically. The
activities included meetings with other Kurds to discuss potential reforms in the Islamic
Republic of Iran, spreading propaganda during the 2009 elections, selling merchandise to
support the “Green Movement” and publicizing an opposition party in his shop. The
complainant’s and his family’s long lasting political involvement led him to become a wellknown local critic of the regime in his home city and in Tehran.
2.2
In December 2011, the complainant was arrested and held in custody in Elvin Prison
for 25 days. He was questioned about his political activities and connection to the Green
Movement during that time. After his release on bail, he realized that he could no longer
continue his political activities and closed down his shop in Tehran. On 17 March and 8
May 2012, he received two summonses to appear before the Department for Enforcement
of the Judgment and later a default judgment from the Revolutionary Court in which he was
convicted in absentia to 8 years in prison for insulting the Islamic Republic and the
regime’s holiness and for acting as instigator and for disrupting the public’s mindset. 2
These offences are punishable by imprisonment or even death.
2.3
After he received the summons, the complainant and his daughter went into hiding.3
After the judgment was handed down from the Revolutionary Court, he became sought by
the police. His father was taken to a police station several times for questioning. 4 On 22
November 2012, the complainant and his daughter left the Islamic Republic of Iran. They
travelled with the assistance of smugglers to Sweden and applied for asylum immediately
after arriving there on 3 December 2012.
2.4
On 5 December 2013, the Migration Agency rejected the complainant’s application
for asylum on the grounds that he, inter alia, hadn’t made it probable that he was wanted or
was at risk of being exposed by the Iranian authorities in case he had to return to the
country of origin, or risked persecution or other such treatment.
2.5
On 7 January 2014, the complainant appealed against the decision of the Migration
Agency to the Migration Court. During his asylum process, the complainant continued to
engage in activities against the Islamic Republic of Iran in which he was critical of its
political situation, its regime and Islam in general. Among other things, in February 2014
he published a book in Sweden that he had completed after leaving the Islamic Republic of
Iran. The book, on crime and punishment in the Islamic Republic of Iran, contained his
critical views of Islam, violence, harassments and censure operations by the Iranian regime.
The content of the book was so controversial that the book’s publisher did not want to put
its name on the book, fearing consequences from the Iranian regime. Furthermore, the
complainant was active on the Internet. In particular, the website of Khabar 1, an Iranian
news channel, cites several articles about religion in the Islamic Republic of Iran for which
the complainant and his daughter are mentioned by name, including their photographs. 5
Also, Balatarin, a popular website of the resistance movement against the Iranian regime,
includes the complainant’s name and photograph and a presentation of his book. Because of
the complainant’s activities on the Internet, his father and other family members have been
called in for questioning by the local authorities and threatened with “consequences” if the
complainant did not end his anti-regime activities. 6 The complainant also provided the
Court with a certificate attesting to his membership of the Swedish branch of the WorkerCommunist Party of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is banned in the Islamic Republic
of Iran because it seeks to overthrow the current regime and to establish a socialist republic
in its place.
2.6
On 4 June 2014, the Migration Court rejected the complainant’s appeal and found
unreliable his story about his activities in the Islamic Republic of Iran. As for the
complainant’s reasons for asylum sur place, the Court found that there was no reason to
2
3
4
5
6
2
The Migration Agency and the Migration Court did not question the authenticity of the documents,
but found the summonses and judgment to be “of a simple nature” and that “they alone could not
substantiate the complainant’s asylum account, however they supplemented his account”.
The complainant is divorced and has custody of his daughter (born in 2002).
There are no details of the dates or reasons for questioning.
There is no information on the content of the articles.
No further details are provided.