CAT/C/53/D/492/2012 4.10 The State party maintains that conversion to Christianity abroad would not expose the complainant to a risk of persecution in the Islamic Republic of Iran, unless he had practised Christianity actively and visibly. The complainant did not mention any public exposure with respect to his Christianity. 4.11 The State party points to factual inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements and to his lack of credibility. During the interrogations by the Federal Office for Migration, it became apparent that since December 2006, approximately, the author had also lived in Germany, where he had requested asylum, and that he had later been expelled to Greece, where he had lived for at least a year and a half. Therefore, his statements concerning his stay in Iraq are not credible. In addition, his statement containing his reasons for leaving the Islamic Republic of Iran was submitted late during the asylum procedure and was therefore considered dubious. Lastly, he made contradictory statements concerning the alleged search of his home by the authorities in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 In his comments of 14 November 2012, the complainant contested the State party’s argument that he did not demonstrate that he would be at a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subject to treatment contrary to the Convention if he were returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. He reiterates that he has taken part in various demonstrations against the Iranian regime, his name and photograph appear on the Internet in connection with his activity with the KDPI, in which he holds a leading position, and he has converted to Christianity. His illegal departure from the Islamic Republic of Iran, his political activity and conversion to Christianity are ample grounds for demonstrating that he would be at risk of being subject to treatment contrary to the Convention. 5.2 The complainant maintains that it is not only high-profile opponents of the regime who are at risk of being detained, ill-treated or tortured.10 He also contests the State party’s argument that his role in the PDKI is merely administrative. Being a head of cantonal sections of the PDKI, organizing events and taking part in conferences are clearly more than merely administrative activities. His name appears on permits for political campaigns and he was on the organizing committees of those events and took an active part in them. 5.3 The complainant submits that the Iranian authorities actively monitor the Internet as well as demonstrations abroad. He refers to a 2011 judgment of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) of the United Kingdom, which concluded that the Iranian authorities systematically target individuals who participate in political demonstrations abroad and that they do not distinguish at all between real political activists and what the Tribunal refers to as opportunistic demonstrators.11 10 11 6 The complainant refers to the recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights concerning Application No. 52077/10, Case of S.F. and others v. Sweden, adopted on 15 May 2012, in which the Court referred to the Islamic Republic of Iran as “a country where on all accounts the human rights situation gives rise to grave concern. It is noted that the country information has changed and that the situation appears to have deteriorated in Iran since the domestic authorities determined the case. It is evident from the current information available on Iran … that the Iranian authorities frequently detain and ill-treat persons who peacefully participate in oppositional or human rights activities in the country. The Court notes that it is not only the leaders of the political organizations or other highprofile persons who are detained but that anyone who demonstrates or in any way opposes the current regime may be at risk of being detained or ill-treated or tortured”, para. 63. BA (Demonstrators in Britain – risk on return) Iran v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (CG [2011] UKUT 36 (IAC)), 1 February 2011.