CAT/C/37/D/251/2004 page 4 2.8 By decision of 10 July 2000, the complainant’s application for asylum was rejected by the Federal Office for Refugees (ODR) - now the Federal Office for Migration (ODM) - which concluded that his allegations were inconsistent and that he had a low political profile, and ordered his expulsion from Swiss territory. 2.9 On 10 June 2004, the Swiss Asylum Review Board (CRA) rejected the complainant’s appeal, considering that his statements contained many factual inconsistencies and contradictions and that his presentation of the facts was not credible. The Board therefore upheld the decision of the Federal Office for Refugees, ordering the complainant’s return under threat of expulsion. The complaint 3.1 The complainant states that the Swiss asylum authorities were wrong to consider that his allegations lacked credibility, since there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be subjected to torture if he were sent back to his country of origin, which would constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention by Switzerland. He notes that he was detained and tortured in the Islamic Republic of Iran and that his cousin was assassinated by the regime of Ayatollah Khomeini because of his family’s involvement in political activities directed against the regime at that time. 3.2 The complainant further states that his participation in political demonstrations and events abroad, as well as his illegal escape from the Islamic Republic of Iran, are decisive factors supporting suspension of his expulsion. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In a note verbale dated 6 September 2004, the State party declared that it did not contest the admissibility of the complaint and that it would pronounce on the merits. On 19 January 2005, the State party submitted observations on the merits. After recalling the Committee’s jurisprudence and its general comment No. 1 on the implementation of article 3, the State party endorsed the grounds cited by the Asylum Review Board substantiating its decision to reject the complainant’s application for asylum and upholding his expulsion. It recalled the Committee’s jurisprudence whereby the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights does not constitute sufficient reason for concluding that a particular individual is likely to be subjected to torture on return to his or her country, and that additional grounds must therefore exist before the likelihood of torture can be deemed to be, for the purposes of article 3, paragraph 1, “foreseeable, real and personal”. 4.2 The State party observes that the complainant adduces no relevant new evidence that would enable him to challenge the Asylum Review Board’s decision of 10 June 2004. It notes the factual inconsistencies and contradictions in the complainant’s statements, emphasized by the domestic asylum bodies. For instance, the complainant alleges that he was ill-treated in prison between 1991 and 1993 but that, after being released, he nevertheless performed his military service in the army’s political ideology section. Since the selection procedures for this section are known to be stringent, it is not credible that he should have performed his military service there, in view of his prior imprisonment and his family’s alleged political activities. His explanation that confusion occurred because of an error in transcribing his surname is not convincing.