CAT/C/45/D/339/2008 not given decisive importance to the information demonstrating that he had been tortured and the fact that the Refugee Board had not given any reason why this information had been disregarded. 2.10 On 10 July 2007, the Refugee Board once again denied to reopen the case. It repeated that the medical report could not result in a revised decision, and that the complainant had not given a trustworthy statement about his political activities in Iran. It also stated that even if he had been subjected to torture in Iran, they did not find that he, if returned to Iran, would be at risk of any physical or mental harm that might warrant granting asylum. 2.11 The complainant submits that it is clear that political activities for different groups, including various monarchist groups, take place in Iran. He acknowledges that the information in the background material is sometimes, contradictory, but it is a fact that in several decisions made by the Danish Refugee Board, the Board has recognized such activities. For instance, in a decision of 9 October 2006, an Iranian man was granted a residence permit as the Refugee Board found that he was at risk of persecution in Iran, as a result of his activities when handing out leaflets for a small monarchist group. The complaint 3.1 The complainant claims that he is at risk of being subjected to torture if returned to Iran. This fear is based on the fact that he was tortured in the past as a result of his political activities, and recommenced such political activities from Denmark. He reiterates that he escaped from the hospital, and that the torture took place during imprisonment immediately prior to his flight, thus indicating that his case remains open before the Iranian authorities. 3.2 According to the complainant, when evaluating whether he is at risk of being subjected to torture, decisive importance should not be given to whether or not he appeared politically well-informed. State party’s observations on the admissibility 4.1 In its submission of 22 July 2008, while acknowledging that the complainant had exhausted domestic remedies, the State party challenged the admissibility of the case as manifestly unfounded. It stated that there were no substantial grounds for believing that returning the complainant to Iran would imply that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. The State party based this statement first and foremost on the four decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board. 4.2 Concerning the alleged torture, the State party emphasized that the Refugee Appeals Board did not, as such, dismiss the statement that the complainant had been subjected to the “outrages” described in the report by Amnesty International. However, this did not demonstrate that the complainant faces a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture if returned to Iran. 4.3 In support of the claim that the complainant is still at risk of being subjected to torture in Iran, the State party noted that he referred to the allegation that he had escaped from the hospital where he was admitted, and that the torture had taken place during imprisonment immediately prior to his flight from Iran. The State party noted that these allegations had not been substantiated by the complainant. 4.4 With regard to the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board of 9 October 2006, relating to another asylum seeker and referred to by the complainant, the State party explained that the Board makes a decision in each asylum case on the basis of the applicant’s statements and the background information about the applicant’s country of 4

Select target paragraph3