CAT/C/22/D/103/1998
page 5
4.7
The State party reiterates that when determining whether article 3 of
the Convention applies, the following considerations are relevant: (a) the
general situation of human rights in the receiving country, although the
existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of
human rights is not in itself determinative; (b) the personal risk of the
individual concerned of being subjected to torture in the country to which he
would be returned; and (c) the risk of the individual being subjected to
torture as a foreseeable and necessary consequence of return. The State party
recalls that the mere possibility that a person will be subjected to torture
in his or her country of origin is not sufficient grounds for his or her
return to be incompatible with article 3 of the Convention.
4.8
The State party is aware of human rights violations taking place in the
Islamic Republic of Iran, including extrajudicial and summary executions and
disappearances, as well as widespread use of torture and other degrading
treatment.
4.9
As regards its assessment of whether or not the author would be
personally at risk of being subjected to torture if returned to Iran, the
State party relies on the evaluation of the facts and evidence made by the
National Immigration Board and the Aliens Appeal Board. Neither found any
reason to question that S.M.R. had been politically active for the Mujahedin
and that she had been imprisoned in the 1980s. However, the Swedish
authorities have found that some elements provided by the authors regarding
S.M.R.’s recent political activities and the circumstances relating to her
departure from Iran raise doubts as to their credibility.
4.10 In its decision of 30 January 1996, the National Immigration Board noted
that S.M.R. had been released from prison in 1990 for lack of evidence. As to
her political activities after her release, the Board found it unlikely that
the political group she claimed she was a member of held meetings and produced
leaflets three times a week in her house without her husband’s knowledge. The
Board also found it improbable that she was wanted by the Iranian authorities
because a typewriter had been found in her home. As to the circumstances of
her departure from Iran, the Board noted that S.M.R. had been able to obtain a
national passport in 1993 and that she had left Iran legally. This is an
additional indication that she was not of interest to the Iranian authorities.
In addition, the Board pointed out that she had waited four months in Sweden
before applying for asylum.
4.11 On 25 November 1996 the Aliens Appeal Board rejected the appeal of
S.M.R. and her children, adding to the findings of the National Immigration
Board that she had not applied for asylum until three months after she
allegedly learned that the authorities were looking for her in Iran. In the
Board’s view, her explanation that she did not, until that point, realize the
proportions of the authorities’ interest in her was not convincing. The Board
stated that the delay alone gave reason to doubt her need of protection in
Sweden. The Board further stated that not only had S.M.R. been able to obtain
a national passport in 1993, but she had also been able to leave the country
several times, which shows that she was not of particular interest to the