CAT/C/25/D/149/1999
page 4
The complaint
3.1.
The author claims that there exist substantial grounds to believe that she would be
subjected to torture if she were returned to Iran. Her forced return would therefore constitute a
violation by Sweden of article 3 of the Convention. Furthermore, the author submits that there is
a consistent pattern of gross human rights violations in Iran, circumstances that should be taken
into account when deciding on expulsion.
The State party’s observations on admissibility and merits
4.1.
In its submission of 24 January 2000, the State party submits that it is not aware of the
present matter having been or being the object of any other procedure of international
investigation or settlement. As to the admissibility of the communication, the State party further
explains that according to the Swedish Aliens Act, the author may at any time lodge a new
application for a residence permit with the Aliens Appeal Board, based on new factual
circumstances which have not previously been examined. Finally, the State party contends that
the communication is inadmissible as incompatible with the provisions of the Convention, and
lacking the necessary substantiation.
4.2.
As to the merits of the communication, the State party explains 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; and (b) the personal risk of the individual concerned of being subjected
to torture in the country to which he/she would be returned.
4.3.
The State party is aware of human rights violations taking place in Iran, including
extrajudicial and summary executions, disappearances, as well as widespread use of torture and
other degrading treatment.
4.4.
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 draws the attention of the Committee
to the fact that several of the provisions of the Swedish Aliens Act reflect the same principle as
the one laid down in article 3, paragraph 1 of the Convention. The State party recalls the
jurisprudence of the Committee according to which, for the purposes of article 3, the individual
concerned must face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being tortured in the country to
which he or she is returned. The State party further refers to the Committee’s general comment
on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention which states that the risk of torture must be
assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion, although the risk does not have to
meet the test of being highly probable.
4.5.
The State party recalls that the author of the present communication has not belonged to
any political organization and has not been politically active in her home country. The author
asserts that she has been sentenced to stoning by a Revolutionary Court in Iran, a judgement
which she maintains would be enforced if she were to be sent back there. The State party states