CAT/C/71/D/885/2018
The facts as submitted by the complainant
2.1
At the end of 2015, the complainant left the Islamic Republic of Iran and transited
through Turkey to Switzerland, arriving on an unspecified date. On 24 November 2015, he
applied for asylum in Switzerland. On 6 April 2016, with his counsel, he attended a hearing
to examine his grounds for seeking asylum. He stated that he feared for his life in the Islamic
Republic of Iran because he had engaged in an intimate relationship with the daughter of a
mullah. The mullah, who had links with the secret service, had refused to consent to their
marriage. On 15 April 2016, the complainant was invited to comment on the draft decision
of the State Secretariat for Migration. In written comments dated 18 April 2016, he provided
explanations for the inconsistencies raised in the draft decision. On 19 April 2016, the State
Secretariat for Migration rejected his asylum application on the ground that his reasons for
fleeing had not been sufficiently substantiated and were not credible. On 31 May 2016, the
Federal Administrative Court dismissed his appeal without examining it, because of nonpayment of court costs.
2.2
On 6 December 2017, the complainant filed an application for re-examination on the
basis of new evidence. He submitted seven documents to establish the credibility of his
motives for fleeing: a judgment issued by Marvdasht Revolutionary Court and dated
5 October 2016; three summonses from the Court, namely one dated 6 June 2016 issued in
respect of the complainant and two dated 18 June 2016 issued in respect of his father and his
brother; and three further summonses from the Court, namely one dated 25 July 2016 issued
in respect of the complainant and two dated 8 August 2016 issued in respect of his father and
his brother.1
2.3
According to the judgment of 5 October 2016, following a complaint made by the
mullah, the complainant was found guilty of “deception and affront”. Under sharia, the
complainant was implicitly found guilty of having committed a criminal offence by seducing
the mullah’s daughter into an unlawful intimate relationship and, in so doing, of having
insulted and dishonoured her father and the entire family. The judgment was also described
as an “enforcement order”, on the basis of which the complainant could be arrested and
should expect, in accordance with formal legal principles, to be given a prison sentence of 5
to 6 years.2 The other documents showed that the complainant, his father and his brother had
all been summoned twice in connection with the case. His father and brother complied with
the summonses.
2.4
On 11 January 2018, the State Secretariat for Migration dismissed the complainant’s
application for re-examination. It challenged the notion that the newly submitted judgment
and the other documents supported the facts presented. Firstly, the State Secretariat observed
that, in the judgment of 5 October 2016, there was no indication that the complainant faced
a sentence of 5 to 6 years’ imprisonment and that it did not contain any reference to a
relationship outside marriage or an intimate relationship incompatible with sharia. During
the ordinary asylum procedure, the complainant had stressed that no formal complaint had
been lodged against him; it therefore seemed unlikely that he would have been summoned to
a hearing soon after. The State Secretariat noted that the Iranian judgment referred to an
earlier judgment, which suggested that the case dated back to the time of the ordinary asylum
procedure. Secondly, the State Secretariat considered that the absence of any reference to
decrees or specific articles of laws called into question the authenticity of the judgment.
Lastly, the State Secretariat noted that it was not clear what the last line of the judgment, in
which the complainant was ordered to comply with the instructions within 10 days, related
to, since the judgment did not include any instructions.
2.5
On 7 February 2018, the Federal Administrative Court rejected the complainant’s
appeal. It held that the judgment of Marvdasht Revolutionary Court was not a partial decision
1
2
2
The complainant submitted the originals of the documents and their certified translations to the State
Secretariat for Migration.
According to the complainant, the mullah would not be satisfied with his arrest and the related
judicial proceedings and, with help from the secret services, would make sure that he “disappeared
permanently” in order to restore the family’s honour, either by subjecting him to an extrajudicial
killing or by ensuring he spent the rest of his life being tortured in prison. The house owned by the
complainant and his brother was also confiscated as a form of reparation for the offence committed.
GE.21-12735