CAT/C/52/D/483/2011-CAT/C/52/D/485/2011 On 8 July 2011, the complainants applied to the Supreme Administrative Court for leave to appeal, with a request for interim protection measures. On 15 July 2011, the Supreme Administrative Court adopted a separate decision and suspended their deportation. However, the Supreme Administrative Court rejected their leave to appeal in a final decision of 26 October 2011. The complainants contend that all available domestic remedies have thus been exhausted. In the meantime, their deportation orders have entered into effect and could be enforced at any time. The complaint 3. The complainants claim that their deportation to the Islamic Republic of Iran, where they have been tortured in the past and where, in their opinion, there are substantial grounds to believe that they would be subjected to torture again, would constitute a violation by Finland of their rights under article 3 of the Convention. They consider their claims credible and submit that their allegations are supported by documentary evidence, including regarding their political involvement with the Komala party, and by recent reports on the current human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran.6 State party’s observations on the merits 4.1 On 15 May 2012, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the case. It recalls the facts of the case and also provides excerpts from relevant domestic legislation. The Aliens Act of the State party provides for the protection of the applicant if there is a “real risk of being subjected to serious harm”.7 The law further defines “serious harm” as the death penalty or execution; torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; and serious and individual threat as a result of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflicts. 4.2 The State party submits that protection from removal from the country is offered if the authorities are “convinced of the veracity of the application”.8 The authorities make such a finding by taking into account the applicant’s statements as well as “real time information of the circumstances … obtained from various sources”.9 4.3 The State party, after considering all the facts of the case, contends that its Immigration Service rejected the complainants’ asylum applications as it found that the 6 7 8 9 The complainants refer to communication No. 357/2008, Jahani v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 23 May 2011, and to R.C. v. Sweden, European Court of Human Rights judgment of 9 June 2010. They also refer to several international sources on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, such as Country Advice: Iran 2009 published by the Australian Government Refugee Review Tribunal on 19 August 2010, available from www.refworld.org/publisher,AUS_RRT,,IRN,4ec4d1d72,0.html; a report of the Iranian Intelligence Service; B.A. (Demonstrators in Britain - risk on return) Iran v. Secretary of State for Home Department, CG [2011] UKUT 36 (IAC), United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), 1 February 2011, available from www.refworld.org/docid/4d5a8c7d2.html; and United Kingdom: Home Office, “Operational guidance note – Iran”, (IRAN OGN v6), 15 March 2011, available from www.refworld.org/docid/4d7f54a42.html. According to the reports, members and supporters of Kurdish opposition groups, such as Komala, are in real danger of being persecuted. Kurdish opposition groups suspected of separatist aspirations are brutally suppressed and individuals suspected of being members of those groups are arrested and imprisoned and some of them sentenced to death. Although the Iranian Constitution prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention, the prohibition is not respected. Suspected dissidents are frequently held in unofficial detention centres, and there are numerous credible reports alleging that members of the security forces and prison personnel torture detainees and prisoners. Aliens Act (301/2004, amendments up to 549/2010 included) sect. 88 (1). Ibid., sect. 98 (3). Ibid., sect. 98 (2). 5