4.2Referring to the jurisprudence of the Committee, the State party recalls that in order to be personally at risk of being subjected to torture in the sense of article 3 of the Convention, there must not only be a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights in the country to which the complainant is expelled, but also specific grounds indicating that the complainant is personally at risk of being subjected to torture. It also recalls that the terms “substantial grounds” imply that torture is highly likely and that the individual must face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being tortured, as interpreted in the light of the Committee’s general comment No. 1 on the implementation of article 3. 4.3Concerning the situation in Iran, the State party, referring to certain Views of the Committee, argues that although the situation is disquieting, it is not at a point where any person removed to Iran would be in danger of being subjected to torture. Moreover, the complainant’s homosexuality does not in itself constitute a risk incompatible with article 3 of the Convention. Referring to a number of country reports carried out by its own services, the State party is of the view that although homosexual acts are prohibited in Iran and may incur the death penalty, there is no active policy of prosecution. Even if a charge of homosexuality is in some cases added to a range of other criminal charges, there are no known cases of conviction, including at the court’s own discretion, solely for homosexual acts. It is further noted that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has not “been able to trace any cases of execution of persons found guilty of homosexual relations”. 4.4Concerning the political activities of his brother, A.A., the State party considers that the complainant has not substantiated that they would imply a personal, real and foreseeable risk of torture for him because his statements in that regard have been inconsistent, vague and contained little detail. According to different interviews, the complainant has been arrested once, 5 or 6 times, or more than 40 times in connection with his brother’s political activities. Moreover, while the complainant stated that his brother had been the leader of a Mujaheddin group, his brother himself told the State party’s authorities that he was only a sympathizer of the Mujaheddin and had distributed pamphlets, but undertook no further activity against the Iranian Government. 4.5The State party considers that it is implausible that, while the complainant had encountered no problems in this respect until he travelled to the Netherlands in March 1992 with the permission of the authorities, upon his return to Iran he was arrested, his passport was confiscated and he was interrogated in connection with his brother’s activities. The State party refers to ministerial reports according to which it is impossible for persons whose background is researched by the authorities to travel abroad, and notes that thousands of Iranians travel abroad annually without encountering problems upon their return to the country. 4.6Moreover, the State party argues that, even assuming that the complainant was indeed arrested after his return to Iran in April 1992, the fact that he was released shortly afterwards without having been molested and that the political activities of his brother took place 17 years ago could not constitute evidence that the complainant would run the risk of being tortured for that reason. 4.7Concerning his sexual preference, the State party notes the complainant’s declarations that until August 1992 and prior to his departure from Iran in August 1993, he did not have any problems with the Iranian authorities in this respect. The State party further considers that his arrest in August 1992 because of his homosexuality lacks credibility because the complainant was not open about his sexual preference. It is similarly implausible that his partner, K.H., whose appearance was patently homosexual, was not arrested. The fact that K.H. did not mention the complainant’s arrest at his asylum hearings also raises doubts about the veracity of this claim given the importance of such a detail. 4.8Concerning the death penalty to which he was sentenced because of his homosexuality, the complainant stated in his first interview that he did not receive any document recording his sentence. In April 1994, he stated that his sentence had been slipped under his cell door, attached to a piece of string. He later stated that he was told that he had to die because he was homosexual. Finally, in December 1994, he stated that his death sentence had been read out to him at the Monkerat office. 4.9The State party observes that the complainant’s account of his detention and escape, i.e. that there was no guard in the evening and that he was able to escape in a garbage truck without encountering any problems, is inconsistent with the detention of a person under sentence of death. 4.10The State party considers that the jurisprudence of the Committee relating to the issue of inconsistencies and contradictions made by victims of torture in their account of past abuses is not applicable to the present case because the complainant’s contradictions relate to essential parts of his alleged persecution. 4.11Concerning the medical reports submitted by the complainant, the State party argues that they conflict with the complainant’s lack of credibility regarding his reasons for seeking asylum. The State party therefore considers that it is not necessary to examine whether the alleged physical symptoms are indicative of torture and thus relevant for the assessment of the complainant’s claim, and that it is incumbent upon the complainant to demonstrate their relevance by presenting a credible claim. Moreover, physicians make their medical findings solely within the limited context of the statements made to them so that the causes of the complainant’s medical situation cannot be ascertained objectively. 4.12Finally, the State party considers that the complainant has not demonstrated that, since his arrival in the Netherlands, his sexual preference has come to the attention of the Iranian authorities, and referring again to the reports made by its Ministry for Foreign Affairs according to which homosexuality remains a social taboo in Iran, that it is implausible that K.H.’s family would have reported to the authorities about the reasons for his death. The complainant has not further demonstrated that he is likely to be imprisoned in Iran, let alone tortured, because of the murder of K.H. committed in another country. Comments by counsel 5.1In a submission dated 30 May 2002, the complainant’s counsel transmitted his comments on the observations of the State party. 5.2Regarding the absence of known cases of recent prosecutions solely on a charge of homosexuality, counsel stated that the complainant emphasizes that this does not mean that there are none and that it is known that Iranian authorities are reluctant to give