CAT/C/65/D/822/2017
permit. Therefore, in the absence of political activities in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the
State Secretariat for Migration doubted the complainant’s political commitment. It also
doubted that the Iranian authorities were able to monitor the vast amount of data available
on the Internet; they would focus only on opponents who, contrary to the complainant, held
a firm belief and as such were perceived as opponents who posed a serious threat to the
State. The State Secretariat for Migration did not find any specific indications to suggest
that the Iranian authorities were aware of the complainant’s alleged activities, and
concluded that the complainant was not portraying the necessary political profile to attract
the attention of the Iranian authorities.
2.7
The complainant appealed, insisting that he had been persecuted in the Islamic
Republic of Iran for having participated in a demonstration. He had become an active
member of the Democratic Association for Refugees in September 2011, before the end of
his first asylum proceedings, and his commitment had only increased progressively. He
considered that the assessment by the State Secretariat for Migration amounted to a
generalization, because he now occupied a function with different responsibilities and
exhibited a clear political profile. Several Iranians had been granted refugee status based
only on their activities in exile. Had the State Secretariat for Migration really considered the
substance of the complainant’s statements and granted him a fair hearing, it would have
noted his pathos and intricacy when criticizing the Iranian regime.
2.8
On 23 February 2017, the Federal Administrative Court upheld the decision of the
State Secretariat for Migration. It found that the complainant’s allegations of having been
persecuted in the Islamic Republic of Iran following his participation in a demonstration
were not credible; that his position as the main person responsible for the website of the
Democratic Association for Refugees did not seem to differ substantially from the work
that he had performed previously as a simple member of the team; that he did not have the
authority to make important decisions within the association; that his position as a news
anchor did not constitute evidence of an intensification of his political profile; that reading
the news did not qualify as exposed political activism; that his Facebook activity
represented generally formulated dissident posts that were limited to accounts of events or
denouncements of abuses in the Islamic Republic of Iran; and that the photographs showing
him taking part in a demonstration did not portray him as a serious opponent to the
Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Court concluded that the complainant had
not reached the level of exposure necessary to put him at risk of persecution in the Islamic
Republic of Iran as a serious and dangerous opponent to the Government.
2.9
In a letter dated 19 April 2017 to the Committee, the Democratic Association for
Refugees certified that the complainant had been an active member since September 2011
and a hostile opponent to the Iranian regime. Given his involvement with the association,
he would be exposed to a high probability of persecution if returned to the Islamic Republic
of Iran.
The complaint
3.1
The complainant maintains that he is the victim of a violation of article 3 of the
Convention by the State party, whose authorities have ordered his expulsion to a country
where he will certainly be at risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to the Convention.
3.2
The complainant refers to the threat of serious harm faced by those who maintain
even a low-profile opposition to the Iranian regime. 5 In its judgments in R.C. v. Sweden and
M.A. v. Switzerland, the European Court of Human Rights noted that anyone who
demonstrated or in any way opposed the current Iranian regime could be at risk of being
detained and ill-treated or tortured. 6 The Committee stated in Tahmuresi v. Switzerland
(CAT/C/53/D/489/2012) that recent reports indicated that even low-level opposition was
closely monitored in the Islamic Republic of Iran and that the Iranian authorities effectively
monitored Internet communications and regime critics both within and outside the country
5
6
Human Rights Watch, World Report 2010, pp. 497 ff.
European Court of Human Rights, R.C. v. Sweden (application No. 41827/07), judgment of 9 March
2010, para. 54; and European Court of Human Rights, M.A. v. Switzerland (application No. 52589/13),
judgment of 18 November 2014, para. 56.
3