CAT/C/71/D/807/2017 4.4 With regard to X’s request to be brought face-to-face with her alleged sister, the Federal Administrative Court considered that this step would not have been able to refute the evidence found. Moreover, at no stage did Golnaz Tarik dispute that she was related to the complainants, even when the Federal Administrative Court asked for her consent to provide a DNA sample. In light of all this evidence, the Federal Administrative Court concluded that the complainants’ allegations of a possible risk of torture upon return were not credible. 4.5 On 1 July 2016, the complainants filed an application for review with the Federal Administrative Court. In support of their application, they submitted documents to disprove the allegations that they were in fact Ebrahim Tarik and Ghazal Tarik. On 7 July 2016, the investigating judge rendered an interim decision rejecting the complainants’ application for legal aid; the investigating judge considered that the application for review had no chance of success and invited the complainants to pay an advance of 1,600 Swiss francs as surety for procedural costs, failing which the appeal would be inadmissible. The complainants did not pay the advance by the deadline. As a result, the Federal Administrative Court struck the application for review from its list. The State party thus supports the decisions of the national authorities, in the light of article 3 of the Convention and the Committee’s jurisprudence and general comments. 4.6 The State party recalls the elements that must be taken into account in order to assess the existence of a “personal, real, present and serious” risk of torture or ill-treatment6 upon return to the country of origin: any evidence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in the country of origin; any claims of torture or ill-treatment in the recent past and independent evidence to support those allegations; the political activity of the complainants within or outside the country of origin; any evidence as to the credibility of the complainants; and any factual inconsistencies in the complainants’ claims. 4.7 The existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights does not, in itself, constitute sufficient grounds for believing that a particular person would be subjected to torture upon return to his or her country of origin. The Committee must establish whether the complainants are “personally” at risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which they would be returned.7 Additional grounds must be adduced in order for the risk of torture to qualify as “foreseeable, real and personal” for the purposes of article 3 (1) of the Convention.8 The risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion.9 4.8 The State party considers that, despite the worrying situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran, violence is not currently widespread in the country. Furthermore, the situation in a country of origin cannot, in itself, constitute sufficient grounds for concluding that the complainants would be at risk of torture if returned. According to the State party, the complainants have in any event not demonstrated that they face this risk. In addition, the State party considers that X’s claims that she was subjected to acts of torture and ill-treatment and was detained are not credible; her medical report does not yield any evidence of the illtreatment that she allegedly suffered. Moreover, there is no mention of any political acts by the complainants in the Islamic Republic of Iran, despite all the claims made before the Swiss courts and the Committee regarding humanitarian activities in support of the Kurds, or of any political acts against the Islamic Republic of Iran carried out in Switzerland. 4.9 The State party is of the view that the complainants have not made plausible allegations of persecution in the Islamic Republic of Iran. It notes that the Swiss authorities have assessed in depth all the arguments made regarding a risk of persecution in the Islamic Republic of Iran. It should be stressed that the complainants’ communication does not contain any new evidence. In considering the present communication, the Committee is thus dealing with a case that has already been subject to a full legal examination by the Swiss authorities, which are specialists in this field. The State party also recalls the Committee’s practice that it is within the purview of the courts of the States parties to the Convention to assess the facts 6 7 8 9 GE.21-12363 Committee against Torture, general comment No. 4 (2017), paras. 26 and 28. K.N. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/20/D/94/1997), para. 10.2. Ibid., para. 10.5, and J.U.A. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/21/D/100/1997), paras. 6.3 and 6.5. Committee against Torture, general comment No. 1 (1997), para. 6, which was replaced by general comment No. 4 on 6 December 2017. 5