CAT/C/63/D/750/2016
assume that the Iranian authorities would have special interest in the complainant, because
he did not have a well-known political profile in the Islamic Republic of Iran and he could
not show that his anti-regime activities in Sweden had become known to the Iranian
authorities.
2.7
On 24 June 2014, the complainant appealed against the decision of the Migration
Court to the Migration Court of Appeals. On 3 October 2014, the Migration Court of
Appeals refused leave to appeal.
2.8
On 16 December 2014, the complainant requested the Migration Agency to stay the
enforcement of the expulsion and to re-examine its previous decision due to impediments to
the enforcement of the expulsion. The complainant claimed new circumstances that
required even greater protection for him and his daughter, namely that the circulation of his
book had been widespread, including sales in Sweden, Germany, the United States of
America and Canada, and it was also available as a free download by anyone in and outside
of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The President of the organization Iranian PEN Centre in
Exile confirmed in a letter the book’s distribution on the Internet. Also, the complainant’s
Facebook page, which had received support from at least 1,199 people, contained several
texts and photographs critical of the Iranian regime and Islam, and about the French
magazine Charlie Hebdo.
2.9
On 29 December 2014, the Migration Agency rejected the complainant’s request
because it considered that it was improbable that the complainant’s activities had become
known to the Iranian authorities.
2.10 On 22 January 2015, the complainant appealed against the Agency’s decision to the
Migration Court. By that time, he had written another book, entitled “Terror in the Islamic
Republic of Iran”, which was critical of Islam, Islamic history and the power used by the
Iranian authorities in the name of Islam. The book was published in Sweden by a local
publisher in Persian and was made available as a free download on the Internet.
2.11 On 26 January 2015, the Migration Court rejected the complainant’s appeal, finding
that the pleaded circumstances could not be considered as new and there were no
impediments to the enforcement of the expulsion.
2.12 On 13 February 2015, the Migration Court of Appeals denied the complainant’s
leave to appeal.
The complaint
3.
The complainant claims that he qualifies as a refugee sur place and, if he and his
daughter were returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran, they would be arrested by the
authorities and subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment due to
his anti-regime activities. The complainant argues that the Swedish authorities have used
old case law and outdated country information as criteria for refugee sur place operations,
thus wrongly denying him and his daughter asylum.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
In a note verbale dated 21 November 2016, the State party submitted its
observations on admissibility and merits. After explaining the applicable legislation and
facts of the case, the State party submits that the complainant has failed to raise the
minimum level of substantiation required for the purposes of admissibility. Thus, the State
party argues that the communication is manifestly unfounded and thus inadmissible
pursuant to article 22 (2) of the Convention and rule 113 (b) of the Committee’s rules of
procedure.
4.2
As for the merits of the case, the State party submits that to constitute a breach of
article 3 of the Convention, the following considerations are relevant: (a) the general human
rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran; and, in particular, (b) the personal,
foreseeable and real risk of the complainant being subjected to torture, following his return
there.
3