CAT/C/65/D/822/2017 State party’s observations on the merits 4.1 On 25 October 2017, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the communication. It recalls that under article 3 of the Convention, States parties are prohibited from expelling, returning or extraditing a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities must take into account all relevant considerations, including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. With regard to the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22, the complainant must establish the existence of a personal, present and substantial risk of being subjected to torture upon return to his or her country of origin. The risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. There must be grounds for describing the risk of torture as substantial (paras. 6 and 7). The following elements must be taken into account to ascertain the existence of such a risk: any evidence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in the State concerned; any claims of torture or maltreatment in the recent past and independent evidence to support those claims; the political activity of the complainant within or outside the State concerned; any evidence as to the credibility of the complainant; and any factual inconsistencies in the complainant’s claims (para. 8). 4.2 The existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not, of itself, constitute sufficient grounds for determining that a particular person would be subjected to torture upon return to that country. The Committee must establish whether the individual concerned is personally at risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would return. 13 Additional grounds must be adduced to show, for the purposes of article 3 (1) of the Convention, that the risk of torture is foreseeable, real and personal.14 4.3 Although the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran is disturbing in a number of respects, such as the massive and systematic use of psychological and physical torture to extract confessions, the situation in the complainant’s country of origin does not, of itself, constitute sufficient grounds for concluding that he would be at risk of torture if he were to be returned there. The complainant has been unable to demonstrate that there is a foreseeable, real and personal risk of him being subjected to torture. He also does not claim to have been subjected to torture by the Iranian authorities. 4.4 With regard to the political activity of the complainant in his country of origin, the complainant claims that he has been a supporter of the Green Movement since the 2009 elections, in which capacity he put up posters in villages and distributed green strips. He also participated in two demonstrations. These claims have been duly considered by the Swiss asylum authorities, which have found them to be implausible. The complainant has not demonstrated genuine political involvement that would have exposed him. Consequently, it is unlikely that the Iranian authorities tried to find him based on his allegedly lost identity card, which in fact could also have been found by another person or stolen. 4.5 With regard to the political activity of the complainant in Switzerland, the State party acknowledges that the Iranian authorities monitor the political activities of their citizens abroad. However, each particular case should be assessed to ascertain whether, in case of return, there is a high probability that political activities in exile may lead to serious adverse effects. The Iranian secret services focus their attention mainly on persons with a particular profile, whose actions fall outside the scope of collective protest and who occupy positions or carry out activities that represent a serious and real threat to the Iranian regime. They are quite capable of distinguishing political activities that reflect a serious personal conviction from activities undertaken primarily for the purpose of obtaining a residence permit. In its decision of 23 February 2017, the Federal Administrative Court was of the 13 14 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), para. 6.5. 5