CAT/C/63/D/750/2016 4.3 In relation to the general human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the State party refers to the recent reports by the United States Department of State, 7 Freedom House, 8 Amnesty International, 9 Human Rights Watch 10 and others, and while not underestimating the legitimate concern that can be expressed regarding the human rights situation in that country, it concludes that the current situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran is such that there is no general need to protect asylum seekers from that country. 4.4 As to the complainant’s claim that the Migration Court’s judgment was based on old case law11 and outdated country information, the State party submits that the Court did take the latest available country of origin information into consideration while at the same time comparing it to the circumstances in the cited case law. In its judgment, the Court said that the activities in the cited case had taken place in the Islamic Republic of Iran during a period after the 2009 elections and that no information had emerged to suggest that the circumstances were different today. 4.5 The State party draws the Committee’s attention to the fact that several provisions in the Swedish Aliens Act reflect the same principles as those laid down in article 3 of the Convention. Thus, the Swedish migration authorities apply the same kind of test when considering an application for asylum under the Aliens Act as the Committee applies when examining a subsequent complaint under the Convention. With respect to the present case, the State party underlines that both the Migration Agency and the Migration Court have conducted thorough examinations of the complainant’s case. 4.6 The State party recalls paragraph 9 of the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22, as well as its views, whereby it has affirmed that the Committee is not an appellate quasi-judicial or administrative body and that considerable weight will be given to findings of facts made by organs of the State party concerned. 4.7 In the complaint, the complainant cites that he risks treatment in violation of the Convention owing to his political activities in opposition to the regime in the Islamic Republic of Iran. During the national asylum investigation, the complainant stated to the Migration Agency that he had been politically active before the elections in 2009. He stated that his activity had been limited to selling goods such as scarves for the Green Movement and discussing social issues with other Kurds, which he also confirmed was not illegal. He also expressly stated that he had not been a member of any political party or organization. According to his own statement, the Iranian authorities did not show any interest in him until 2011, when he was allegedly arrested and detained for 25 days. Subsequent to that, he and his family ceased their political activities. The reasons for requesting asylum that the complainant gave before the Migration Agency then escalated in his submission before the Migration Court, in which he presented new information in relevant aspects and stated, inter alia, that his shop in Tehran had been a centre for the election campaign in the area and that he had been politically active until his arrest. He further submitted documents to prove that he had been a member of the Worker-Communist Party of the Islamic Republic of Iran, despite the fact that, previously, he had stated that he had not belonged to any party. Furthermore, the complainant presented new information that he had been contacted by unknown persons by telephone at his shop and threatened to stop his political activities. This information, however, contradicted his submissions from the migration investigation, in which he had stated that he had had no problems with the authorities until his arrest. The 7 8 9 10 11 4 United States Department of State, “2015 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices — Iran” (13 April 2016), available at www.refworld.org/docid/57161258c.html. Freedom House, “Freedom in the World 2016 — Iran” (7 March 2016), available at www.refworld.org/docid/56dea2f515.html. Amnesty International, “Report 2015/16 — Iran” (24 February 2016), available at www.refworld.org/docid/56d05b4be.html. Human Rights Watch, “World Report 2016 — Iran” (27 January 2016), available at www.hrw.org/world-report/2016/country-chapters/iran. In its 4 June 2014 judgment, the Migration Court referred to its own case law from 2011, specifically its decision in the case of another sur place Iranian asylum seeker, in which it had found that if regime critics who applied for asylum lacked a political profile, it was improbable that they would catch the attention of the Iranian authorities upon their return to Islamic Republic of Iran.