CAT/C/63/D/750/2016 4.11 The State party emphasizes that the complainant has not held any leading position within the political opposition or in any anti-regime organization in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Furthermore, he has not held any other kind of high-profile political position that, in conjunction with political activities in the Islamic Republic of Iran or abroad, could constitute a risk of persecution upon return. He has not been well known in the Islamic Republic of Iran and has not suffered any interference or persecution from the authorities after his alleged detention in 2011. His activities in Sweden can furthermore not be regard as extensive or as constituting a threat to the Iranian regime. Thus, the State party holds that there is nothing to support the complainant’s claim that the Iranian regime will take action against him upon return because of his past activities in the Islamic Republic of Iran or his cited sur place activities in Sweden. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 In his submission dated 1 April 2017, the complainant disputed the State party’s assertion that his communication was manifestly unfounded. 5.2 The complainant argues that, in its submission on the merits of the case, the State party used outdated reports regarding the general human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran today. Referencing a more recent report of the United States Department of State, 14 the complainant submits that prosecutors in the Islamic Republic of Iran frequently use moharebeh (enmity towards or waging war against God) as a criminal charge against political dissidents and journalists, accusing them of struggling against the precepts of Islam and against the State, which upholds those precepts. The Government has often charged political dissidents with vague crimes, such as “anti-revolutionary behavior”, “corruption on Earth”, “siding with global arrogance”, “moharebeh” and “crimes against Islam”. Plainclothes officials have often seized journalists and activists without warning, and government officials have refused to acknowledge their custody of them or to provide information on them. There have been credible reports that security forces and prison personnel have tortured and abused detainees and prisoners. Acts of judicially sanctioned corporal punishment, including flogging, blinding and amputation, have been defended by the Government as “punishment” not torture. The complainant argues that, although the information above does not in itself suffice to establish that the general human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran is such that his expulsion would be in breach of article 3 of the Convention, it has great importance in assessing his personal risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to the article. 5.3 As for the personal risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of article 3 of the Convention, the complainant submits that it is above all his sur place activity in Sweden, and not the events that occurred previously in the Islamic Republic of Iran, that constitutes the clearest and most prominent danger for him. However, those events are also relevant, as they demonstrate the complainant’s former political activity and harassment, which has an impact on the assessment of the risk he faces if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. The complainant submitted documents, including the written summonses and default judgment of the Revolutionary Court, which the Swedish Migration Agency and Migration Court decided were of low value and “of a simple nature”,15 thereby implying that they were not taken into consideration at all. 5.4 The complainant refers to the Swedish Migration Agency’s own policy document for determining sur place activities, which states that an applicant can be noticed by the Iranian authorities if: (a) he has pronounced opinions criticizing the Iranian regime in his own name through media or the Internet, which can be spread in Sweden and/or the Islamic Republic of Iran; (b) there is concrete information, such as a judgment or a summons, that suggests that the applicant would be of particular interest to the Iranian authorities; or (c) the person has taken a prominent political position designed to criticize the regime. If an applicant can plausibly demonstrate that his or her regime-criticizing views have been noticed by the Iranian authorities, or can be noticed by them, he or she shall be granted a 14 15 6 United States Department of State, “2016 country report on human rights practices — Iran” (3 March 2017), available at www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2016/nea/265496.htm. See footnote 2.