CAT/C/45/D/339/2008
origin. The fact that the Board may have granted asylum in another case, unrelated to the
complainant’s, could in itself lead to a revised assessment of the complainant’s case.
4.5
Concerning the complainant’s alleged political activities in Iran for a monarchist
organization, the State party submitted that the Refugee Appeals Board conducted a
detailed assessment of this submission, and concluded that it seemed improbable, based on
information on the level of activity of that organization in Iran from UNHCR and other
sources. The State party also referred to the initial submission page 6, where the
complainant’s attorney stated that “it cannot be ruled out that [the complainant] has
exaggerated the extent of his political activities”.
4.6
Concerning the complainant’s alleged political activities after his arrival in
Denmark, the State party submitted that he had failed to demonstrate the substantial
political character of the majority of these activities. For instance, the purpose of the hunger
strike the complainant participated in was to draw society’s attention to the conditions of
asylum-seekers in Denmark, and was in no way related to the situation in Iran.
4.7
In sum, the State party submitted that the complainant has not sufficiently
demonstrated that he had engaged in sustained political activities either in Iran or in
Denmark, or any other activities for that matter, which would, at present, give substantial
grounds to believe that his return to Iran would expose him to a real, specific and personal
risk of torture, within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention.
Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on the admissibility
5.1
On 6 October 2008, the complainant submitted that the key to understanding the
handling of this case by Danish authorities appears from the decisions by the Danish
Immigration Service dated 17 May 2004 and the Danish Refugee Board on 27 September
2004. In both decisions, the application for asylum was refused, and the complainant’s
statements about torture were not mentioned at all. In its three decisions not to reopen the
case, the Danish Refugee Board did not consider the case, but it merely defended its
original decision of 27 September 2004, in which it completely omitted to deal with the
issue of torture.
5.2
The complainant argued that as he had fled from his country of origin, he was
unable to produce evidence other than the oral information provided. The State party had
the opportunity to let the complainant undergo a medical examination concerning torture,
but had chosen not to do so. He also added that the Iranian authorities were aware of his
political activities outside Iran, including an article published in a German monarchist
newspaper.
Decision on admissibility
6.1
At its forty-second session, the Committee considered the question of the
admissibility of the complaint and ascertained that the same matter had not been and was
not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.
On the issue of domestic remedies, the Committee noted the State party’s acknowledgment
that domestic remedies had been exhausted, and thus found that the complainant had
complied with the requirements in article 22, paragraph 5 (b).
6.2
The Committee took note of the State party’s contention that the complaint should
be declared inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention, on the basis that
it failed to rise to the basic level of substantiation required for purposes of admissibility
under article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention. It considered, however, that the
complainant had made sufficient efforts to substantiate his claim, particularly in light of his
account of previous torture (see A.A.C. v Sweden Communication N° 227/2003), and the
medical certificate which supported this contention, of a violation of article 3 of the
5