torture. In the State party’s view, the one medical report (issued 23 May 1990) submitted in the case does not provide any support for the allegation that the complainant suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. Neither does it contain information to the effect that during the medical examination scars were found on his lips and in his oral cavities. The State party is therefore of the opinion that the reference to his alleged experiences of torture does not suffice as an explanation for the inconsistencies of his account of events. 4.7On the issue of the complainant’s involvement in political activities, the State party notes that he has not submitted any evidence of these activities, or of his claim that the Iranian authorities were aware of his activities. The State party argues that this lack of evidence should be noted, particularly in view of the fact that during the asylum proceedings the complainant provided clearly conflicting information regarding whether he had been politically active in Iran. Furthermore, he submitted different information regarding both the reasons for the arrests and the length of time of the detentions that were allegedly consequences of these activities. If the Committee decides to accept the complainant’s statements on this issue, the State party would argue that the complainant claimed only to be a supporter and not a member of the organization Cherikhaj Fadai Schalg and his activities appear to have been “low key” in nature and extent. For these reasons he would never have been more than of minor interest to the Iranian authorities. Therefore, in the State party’s view, it is unlikely that the incident in the park was prompted by the complainant’s political background as argued by him in his Migration Board application in 1990. 4.8On the issue of the complainant’s account of the incident with the guards in 1989, the State party submits that the complainant altered his version of events in several important respects. Inconsistencies are to be found in respect of the time, place and reason for the alleged attack, as well as the course of events and the consequences thereof. In particular, the State party highlights the new facts, submitted in the complainant’s application to the Government on 10 January 2002, that his girlfriend was with him at the time of the incident and that the guards threw acid on her face. He also mentioned in that application, for the first time, that he had actually killed the guard with the knife and that his girlfriend had committed suicide and he admitted that he was aware of these facts when he left Iran. 4.9The State party also notes that new circumstances regarding this incident, and not mentioned previously to the Swedish authorities, were submitted to the Committee, including the contention that the knife hit the guard’s body rather than his face, that his girlfriend was with him at the time of the incident and that it was she and not the complainant who was wearing the crucifix. In addition, the State party submits that the claim that the guard pushed the complainant into a shop window, thereby causing him severe injuries, appears for some unknown reason to have been withdrawn between the asylum proceedings and the proceedings concerning expulsion. 4.10On the issue of the complainant’s departure from Iran, the State party submits that the complainant modified his account of events, first claiming that his father organized the departure with a smuggler and then that he himself contacted the smuggler. In addition, during his interviews with the Migration Board on 26 October 1989 and 13 November 1989, he said that he left Iran through the Iranian seaport of Bandar-E-Abbas and used his military certificate and driver’s licence to identify himself during the trip from Tehran to Bandar-E-Abbas. However, later in the proceedings he claimed to have left Iran through Turkey and used false documents to leave the country. For this reason, and the fact that the complainant has provided no documentary proof to support his claims in relation to the journey, the State party argues that it cannot be excluded that he left Iran legally. Considering that the complainant claims to have been wanted by the Iranian authorities for one month at the date of departure, it is questionable whether he would have succeeded in leaving the country had he used his military certificate and driver’s licence. According to the State party, this may explain why the complainant later submitted that he used false documents to exit the country. 4.11On the issue of the death of the complainant’s mother, the State party submits that the complainant contradicted himself first by stating that she died at the end of 1990 due to heart problems and then that she was murdered in 1996 as a consequence of her son’s actions. The complainant has provided no explanation in this regard. 4.12Finally, the State party submits that the complainant changed his position with regard to the indictment against him in Sweden. In the District Court, he pleaded guilty but in the Court of Appeal retracted the statement he had made earlier. In the State party’s view, this gives reason to seriously call into question his claim that there is a death sentence against him in Iran. In this regard, the State party submits that there is no indication that an arrest order has been issued against the complainant. It also refers again to the opinion of the Swedish Embassy in Tehran that it is not likely that the complainant would have been convicted and sentenced in absentia, as he has claimed. According to the State party, all these contradictory statements made by the complainant raise serious doubts about the general veracity of his claim. Comments by the complainant 5.1The complainant contests the State party’s argument that the complaint is inadmissible and submits that the facts of the case are very different from those which the Committee previously found inadmissible for want of substantiation. 5.2The complainant agrees that the Aliens Act reflects the rights protected in article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention but argues that the issue is how the State party applies that law; he refers to the fact that the Committee has found violations against Sweden of article 3 on nine previous occasions. 5.3The complainant argues that the information provided by the Migration Board to the District Court that there are no impediments to the complainant’s expulsion to Iran is a standard response from the Migration Board when a case has already been rejected by the Migration Board and the Aliens Appeals Board. He argues that the Migration Board did in no deeper sense consider all aspects of the risks to which the complainant might be exposed if returned to Iran. In fact, he argues that in the written judgement of the District Court the expulsion matters concerning the complainant only cover half a page and deal only with the complainant’s relationship with his wife and daughter, and finds that expulsion is necessary because of the serious nature of the crime committed by the complainant. Nothing is mentioned in the judgement concerning the risk to the complainant if he were returned to Iran. He also argues that the Court of Appeal judgement gives no indication that it considered the risk connected to his expulsion.