information about criminal prosecutions. Moreover, according to an Amnesty International report transmitted to the State party on 7 November 2001, 100 people were tortured in Iran in July 2001, at least 10 people were hanged and 100 death sentences were upheld by the Supreme Court. As the background of these incidents is most of the time difficult to ascertain, homosexuality may in some cases have been an issue. 5.3The complainant underlines the State party’s observation that homosexual acts are often prosecuted together with other criminal charges. He states that this is exactly what he expects to happen in his case since the body of his partner was repatriated to Iran. This will give the Iranian authorities a reason to add a criminal charge of murder to that of homosexuality. The complainant considers that the murder he committed constitutes in itself a risk of being tortured if returned to Iran and that the fact that he has already been punished in the Netherlands is irrelevant. 5.4Regarding the alleged contradictions and inconsistencies of his account of the facts, the complainant considers that the State party misinterpreted his words, particularly on the question of his detention on account of his brother’s political activities. During the first interview with the Dutch authorities, the complainant mentioned that he was arrested once because of his homosexuality and several times in connection with his brother’s political activities. His subsequent declarations related variously to his separate and different arrests. The complainant finally notes that he is not in a position to compare his interviews with those of his brother as he was transmitted the file by the State party. 5.5Regarding the alleged implausibility of his having been arrested in August 1992 for his homosexuality because he was not open about his sexual preference, the complainant reiterates that he was arrested following complaints made by neighbours who saw him with K.H., who was openly homosexual. Moreover, the complainant considers that it is perfectly conceivable that K.H. had gone into hiding. 5.6Regarding the fact that K.H. did not mention the detention of the complainant during his own asylum hearing, it is noted that K.H. was not specifically interrogated on this issue and that interviews were short. 5.7The complainant confirms that he never received any document recording his death sentence, and that he was only informed of it when a document relating to the sentence was pushed under his cell door and then pulled back. 5.8The complainant finally submits an additional report made by Stichting Centrum ‘45, an organization dealing with traumatized war victims and asylum-seekers, according to which his situation is worsening and that serious risk of suicide exists. Contrary to the State party, the complainant considers that medical reports do constitute evidence in support of his claim. Moreover, he notes that he has already demonstrated the relevance of the medical reports. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 6.1Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee 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. 6.2Moreover, the Committee notes that the State party has not submitted any objections on the admissibility of the communication, including with regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Committee therefore declares the communication admissible and proceeds without further delay to its consideration of the merits. 7.1The Committee must decide whether the forced return of the complainant to the Islamic Republic of Iran would violate the State party’s obligation, under article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention, not to expel or return (refouler) an individual to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. In order to reach its conclusion, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, including the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. The aim, however, is to determine whether the individual concerned would personally risk torture in the country to which he or she would return. It follows that the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute sufficient grounds for determining whether the particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his return to that country; additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. Conversely, the absence of a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights does not imply that a person cannot be considered to be in danger of being subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances. 7.2In the present case, the Committee notes that the political activities of the complainant’s brother took place more than 17 years ago and that they may not in themselves constitute a risk that the complainant himself would be subjected to torture if he were returned to Iran. 7.3Concerning the alleged difficulties faced by the complainant because of his sexual orientation, the Committee notes a number of contradictions and inconsistencies in his account of past abuses at the hands of the Iranian authorities, as well as the fact that part of his account has not been adequately substantiated or lacks credibility. 7.4The Committee also notes from different and reliable sources that there currently is no active policy of prosecution of charges of homosexuality in Iran. 7.5In the light of the arguments presented by the complainant and the State party, the Committee finds that it has not been given enough evidence by the complainant to conclude that the latter would run a personal, present and foreseeable risk of being tortured if returned to his country of origin.