indication that the author may have destroyed his travel documents in bad faith is a common phrase automatically used to question the general veracity of a claim. With regard to the second, counsel reminds the Committee that the author has given a plausible explanation of why he was granted a passport despite being under surveillance (see para. 2.6). 5.2 With reference to the immigration authorities' argument that it does not seem likely that the secret police would use a person under surveillance to spy for them, counsel submits that it is common knowledge that in dictatorships the secret police do force persons over whom they have a hold to work for them in different ways. 5.3 Counsel notes the contradictions with regard to the Swedish Immigration Board's and the Aliens Appeals Board's argumentation concerning the judgement for check fraud presented by the author. One of the main reasons for the Immigration Board's doubts as to the credibility of the author was that it questioned the authenticity of the judgement. When it was ascertained, through the Swedish Embassy in Tehran, that the judgement was in fact authentic, the Aliens Appeals Board in turn used the authenticity of the document as an argument against the author, indicating that the author had been imprisoned for check fraud and had not been persecuted on political grounds. Counsel submits that the use of false charges in suppressive States in general, and in the Islamic Republic of Iran in particular, is common to dispose of persons seen as a threat against the State and at the same time create an image of a legitimate rule of law. The Committee's attention is drawn to the fact that the author's account in this respect was considered not credible by the Aliens Appeals Board without giving any reason therefor. Counsel further points out that for the author, it was obvious that he had been judged on false charges, which was why he presented the verdict to the Swedish immigration authorities in the first place. No person would present a real verdict and expect to be granted asylum on that ground alone. 5.4 Counsel recalls that the Aliens Appeals Board does not question the fact that the author had been imprisoned in the Islamic Republic of Iran, nor that he was at that time subjected to torture and ill-treatment. 5.5 With regard to the author's escape, counsel points out that the author has given such a detailed description of the events that there should be no doubt about its veracity. Details were also given to the examining psychiatrist who in his medical certificate judged the author to be completely trustworthy. 5.6 The authorities question why the author did not apply for asylum in Germany if, as claimed, he feared persecution by the Iranian authorities. Counsel points out that the author has given a clear and plausible