CAT/C/53/D/492/2012 and that films and photographs documenting his participation have been published on the Internet. His name appears on the authorizations from the city of Zurich authorities for political events and he serves as the president of the executive committee of KDPI Switzerland for the cantons of Luzern, Schwyz and Zug. 4.5 The State party acknowledges that the Iranian authorities systematically monitor the political activities of their citizens abroad. However, they focus on individuals with a specific profile whose action goes beyond mass opposition and who hold positions or carry out activities that could represent a concrete threat to the regime. The State party asserts that the complainant does not have such a profile; the activities in which he alleges to participate are the typical activities undertaken by many exiled Iranians and would not distinguish the complainant as potentially dangerous to the Iranian regime, even if the Iranian authorities came to known of him. Mere membership of a political organization abroad, participation in demonstrations against the regime, carrying banners and shouting slogans do not suffice to be perceived as a danger in case of return. 4.6 The State party asserts that, even if the Iranian authorities are likely to be informed about the political activities of many Iranians abroad, they cannot monitor and identify them all. They are also aware that many Iranians living abroad attempt to portray themselves as dissidents in order to obtain asylum. The complainant’s political involvement in Switzerland is typical mass opposition behaviour; his profile is not that of a serious opponent who is dangerous to the regime. The State party notes that since 9 July 2009, the Swiss Federal Administrative Tribunal has adopted a stricter position concerning Iranian groups in Switzerland, as their aim appears to be to increase the visibility of their members in order to influence the asylum procedure. 4.7 The State party contests the complainant’s statement that he has a particular profile owing to his position within the KDPI. The State party considers his role in the organization to be administrative in nature. The complainant does not appear to be a serious and dangerous opponent of the regime. 4.8 The State party submits that the complainant’s entire claim concerning the risk of his persecution in the Islamic Republic of Iran, particularly his activities in Switzerland, was examined by the competent Swiss authorities. The complaint submitted to the Committee does not contain any new elements, or claim that there were any shortcomings in the State party’s asylum procedure. The State party refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence that “it is within the purview of the courts of the States parties to the Convention to assess the facts and evidence in a case”,7 and that the Committee should examine facts and evidence only if it can be established that “the evidence was assessed in a patently arbitrary manner or one that amounted to a miscarriage of justice”.8 In the case in question, the elements submitted by the complainant do not point to any such irregularities. 4.9 The State party also notes that the complainant refers to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of R.C. v. Sweden.9 However, in that case, the applicant had proved that his ill-treatment had been the result of his political involvement in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and therefore the Court had ruled that his forced return would constitute a violation of the prohibition of torture. In the present case, the complainant had not demonstrated that he had been mistreated in his country of origin and his allegations concerning his political activities there lacked credibility. 7 8 9 The State party refers to communication No. 419/2010, Ktiti v. Morocco, decision adopted on 26 May 2011, para. 8.7. Ibid., para. 8.7. See note 6 above. 5