2.7On 16 March 1994, the complainant applied for both refugee status and a residence permit on humanitarian grounds. Both applications were rejected on 26 August 1994. On 29 August 1994, the complainant applied for a review of this decision. On 22 December 1994, the Advice Committee on Alien Affairs advised the State Secretary of the Department of Justice to deny asylum to the complainant but to grant him a residence permit because of his physical and psychological condition. 2.8Since his arrival in the Netherlands, the complainant shared accommodation with his partner, K.H., until the latter started relationships with other men. After a fight about this, the complainant killed his partner. On 22 June 1995, the complainant was convicted of murder by the District Court of Leeuwarden and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. He was imprisoned between 21 January 1995 and 21 January 1999. The body of K.H. was repatriated to Iran, after intervention by the Iranian Embassy in the Netherlands. 2.9In the meantime, on 12 September 1996, the application for review of the initial decision denying asylum and a residence permit to the complainant was rejected. The complainant appealed this decision on 13 September 1996 before the District Court of The Hague. 2.10Moreover, because of the crime committed by the complainant, the State Secretary of the Department of Justice declared the complainant to be an “undesirable person” on 10 September 1996. A request to review this decision was rejected on 6 December 1996. The complainant made a further appeal against this decision on 24 December 1996 before the District Court of The Hague. 2.11On 22 December 1999, the District Court of The Hague dismissed both appeals of 13 September 1996 and 24 December 1996. 2.12In the meantime, on 1 October 1999, the complainant submitted a new application for asylum which was rejected on 5 October 1999. His appeal against this decision was finally rejected on 11 May 2001. The complaint 3.1The complainant claims that if he is returned to Iran he is at risk of being subjected to torture, and that his forcible removal to Iran would entail a violation of article 3 of the Convention by the State party. 3.2In support of his claim, the complainant argues that he was tortured when he was detained in Iran in 1992. The consequences of these abuses are confirmed by a number of medical reports submitted to the Committee. According to the medical reports, the complainant suffers from severe post-traumatic stress disorder, including suicidal tendencies, and his right shoulder is seriously restricted in its movements because he had been hung by one arm for prolonged periods. 3.3The complainant considers that the main element supporting the risk of torture are his homosexuality and the events that occurred in the Netherlands after his arrival. He argues that his homosexuality was confirmed by his partner, K.H., during hearings relating to his own asylum application and by the judgement of 22 June 1995, in which the complainant was convicted of murder. 3.4The complainant explains that after the death of K.H., his body was repatriated to Iran and that the Iranian authorities have undoubtedly tried to obtain explanations about the reasons for K.H.’s death. If he were removed now to Iran, he would certainly face problems relating to the murder and, in particular, his homosexuality. This would put him at risk of again being detained and subjected to torture and other forms of ill-treatment. 3.5The complainant, referring to a report of Amnesty International of 30 July 1997, notes that homosexual activities are a criminal offence under the Iranian Penal Code. He points out that the mere declaration of four witnesses, as well as the opinion of a judge based on his own knowledge, could lead to punishment. The report further says that a person suspected of “committing” homosexual activities risks arrest, torture (lashes) or ill-treatment. 3.6As to sources that confirm the existence of acts of torture in Iran, the complainant refers to the report of the Special Representative of the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran of 21 September 1999, according to which “[p]ress accounts suggest that corporal punishment is prevalent. In January 1999, an Iranian newspaper reported that two 15-year-old boys had been sentenced to a flogging for ‘offending public democracy’ by dressing up as girls and wearing make-up. They explained to the Court that they did this to ‘extract money from rich young men’. In June an Iranian newspaper reported that a young man in Mashad had been given 20 lashes for ‘wounding public moral sentiments’ by plucking his eyebrows and wearing eyeshadow. In March an Iranian newspaper reported that six persons had been sentenced in Mashad to 18 months in jail and 228 lashes for goading passers-by to dance in the street …” (A/54/365, para. 38).3.7The complainant underlines that the decisions of the State party to deny him refugee status were based on alleged discrepancies and, in particular, on the fact that K.H. did not mention during his own asylum hearings that the complainant had been detained in Iran. The complainant argues that K.H. only mentioned his homosexual relationship with him and explained that his partner also had problems but did not give any more details. The complainant also refers to the jurisprudence of the Committee according to which complete accuracy can seldom be expected from victims of torture. 3.8Finally, the complainant states that the denial of his request to remain in the State party because he was convicted of a serious crime is not compatible with the absolute character of article 3 of the Convention. Furthermore, the complainant argues that he is not a threat to the Dutch society because his crime was committed out of passion, as confirmed in the court judgement of 22 June 1995. State party’s observations on the admissibility and merits 4.1In a submission dated 21 November 2000, the State party made its observations on the merits of the case as it did not propose any grounds for inadmissibility.