explanation of why he did not do so. The author would not have been able to get his passport renewed or a tourist visa for Germany if it had not been for a close and influential friend of the author's family with business contacts in Germany. The author was therefore determined not to seek asylum in Germany since doing so would likely compromise the friend. The author, like everyone else, was aware that immigration authorities in Germany and elsewhere take note of the sponsor of a person who seeks asylum after having been granted a tourist visa. 5.7 Finally, counsel points out that the transcripts of the one and only interrogation of the author by the Swedish immigration authorities is of poor quality. The interpretation and translation of the author's account are of a low standard and even the Swedish text is sometimes incomprehensible. According to the transcripts, the author did not seem to be allowed to tell his story and was constantly interrupted by provocative questions. The torture is not questioned. As an example of the poor translation, counsel points to an instance where "prosecutor" was replaced by "Chairman of the Court", thereby leading the Swedish Immigration Board initially to doubt the authenticity of the judgement. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee is further of the opinion that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted. The Committee finds that no further obstacles to the admissibility of the communication exist. Since both the State party and the author have provided observations on the merits of the communication, the Committee proceeds immediately with the consideration of those merits. 6.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the forced return of the author to the Islamic Republic of Iran would violate the obligation of Sweden under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 6.3 The Committee must decide, pursuant to article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the author would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to Iran. In reaching this decision, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention,