CAT/C/52/D/483/2011-CAT/C/52/D/485/2011 7.3 The Committee notes that the State party itself has recognized that the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran constitutes a matter of concern and that prominent political opponents of the regime are at risk of torture there. The Committee recalls its own findings regarding the extremely worrisome human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran, particularly for individuals of Kurdish ethnicity, since the elections held in the country in June 2009.14 In that regard, the Committee takes into consideration the 2014 report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran (A/HRC/25/61), which cites the persecution, imprisonment and execution of members of the Kurdish minority “in the absence of fair trial standards” (paras. 45, 47, 51, 82 and 83). The Committee also notes the 2014 report of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran (A/HRC/25/26), which states that several Kurdish prisoners were allegedly executed after having been sentenced to death for charges including moharebeh (enmity against God) and for alleged links to political parties, including Komala (para. 9). 7.4 The Committee also recalls its general comment No. 1, according to which the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. While the risk does not have to meet the test of being “highly probable” (para. 6), the Committee notes that the burden of proof generally falls on the complainant, who must present an arguable case that he or she faces a foreseeable, real and personal risk.15 The Committee further recalls that, in accordance with its general comment No. 1, it gives considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned, while at the same time it is not bound by such findings and instead has the power, provided by article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, of free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case (para. 9). 7.5 The Committee takes note of the conclusions of two psychiatric examinations as well as the physiotherapist’s statement regarding Mr. X, who, according to a medical doctor’s conclusion, suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. The second complainant, Mr. Z, adduced a statement from a general practitioner who finds that “while the injuries seen now are very slight … there is no reason to doubt that they could have been caused during a period of incarceration between April and May 2007” as described by Mr. Z. The Committee takes note of the submission by the State party that the injuries indicated in the medical statements are only minor and that the medical documentation in question does not establish, beyond reasonable doubt, whether the injuries were the consequence of torture or ill-treatment. The Committee observes, however, that the medical certificate provided by Mr. X states that the complainant’s medical symptoms are “compatible with the symptoms” of someone who has suffered torture. It also considers that the State party, in the light of those doubts, could have ordered an additional examination of the complainant in order to reach a fully informed conclusion on the matter. 7.6 The Committee notes that both complainants provided certificates of membership of the Komala party, issued by the party’s office in Sweden. It also notes that the State party is not disputing the fact that the complainants are part of a politically active and high-profile family, as their father and uncles have also been active in the Komala party and have been persecuted by the Iranian authorities for their political views. The Committee observes that, owing to the complainants’ political activities, their family connections to political opposition activists, as well as their previous imprisonment, and notwithstanding the time elapsed since their departure from their country of origin, they are most likely to attract the 14 15 8 See communications No. 357/2008, Jahani v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 23 May 2011, para. 9.4, and No. 381/2009, Faragollah et al v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 21 November 2011, para. 9.4. See, inter alia, communications No. 203/2002, A.R. v. Netherlands, decision adopted on 14 November 2003, and No. 258/2004, Dadar v. Canada, decision adopted on 23 November 2005.