CAT/C/53/D/492/2012 (b) The complainant claims that he is in a similar position to the two heads of cantonal branches of the Democratic Association for Refugees, a political opposition group active in Switzerland only, who the Committee considered to be at risk of persecution if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran;3 (c) The complainant has been an active member of KDPI in Switzerland. He claims that reliable reports confirm that the Iranian authorities thoroughly monitor and record the political activities of the Iranian diaspora,4 and asylum seekers and refugees are kept under strict surveillance by the Iranian embassies and their network of informers;5 (d) The complainant has converted to Christianity. The complainant claims that Christian converts are considered second-class citizens in the Islamic Republic of Iran, targeted by radical Muslim groups and persecuted by their own families. Rejected asylum seekers are thoroughly questioned upon entering the Islamic Republic of Iran and it is very likely that the authorities would find out about his conversion; (e) Since the complainant left the Islamic Republic of Iran illegally, he finds it probable that he would come to the attention of the Iranian authorities and that his past would be likely to be revealed, which would put him at additional risk.6 State party’s observations on the merits 4.1 On 15 August 2012, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the complaint. It submits that the national authorities evaluated in detail the risk of the complainant’s persecution in the Islamic Republic of Iran and found that the complaint does not include any new elements that had not been evaluated by the Federal Office for Migration and the Federal Administrative Tribunal. 4.2 It considers that, although the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran is worrisome in several respects, the Islamic Republic of Iran is not affected by generalized violence. While the complainant refers to a general risk, he has not demonstrated that he incurs a foreseeable, personal and real risk of being subjected to torture. The State party also argues that rejected asylum seekers do not face persecution if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran, even if they left the country illegally. 4.3 The State party submits that the complainant was not subjected to torture or illtreatment in the past. It also submits that the complainant does not have the profile of a serious opponent who poses a danger to the Iranian regime owing to his political activities abroad. His statements about his political activities in the Islamic Republic of Iran lack credibility and he has not demonstrated that the Iranian authorities have initiated proceedings against him. 4.4 The State party notes the complainant’s submission that he is politically active in the Swiss branch of the KDPI, that he participates in demonstrations against the Iranian regime, 3 4 5 6 4 Communications No. 357/2008, Jahani v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 23 May 2011, para. 9.10; and No. 381/2009 Faragollah et al. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 21 November 2011, para. 9.6. See the 2011 report from the German Home Office, Verfassungsschutzbericht, p. 356 (German only). Available from www.verfassungsschutz.de/download/SHOW/vsbericht_2010.pdf. Danish Immigration Service, “Human rights situation for minorities, women and converts, and entry and exit procedures, ID cards, summons and reporting, etc.”, 2009, p. 34. Available from www.nyidanmark.dk/NR/rdonlyres/90D772D5-F2DA-45BE-9DBB87E00CD0EB83/0/iran_report_final.pdf . See European Court of Human Rights, Applications No. 41827/07, R.C. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 9 March 2010, paras. 35 and 36; and No. 25904/07, NA. v. the United Kingdom, paras. 134–136, decision adopted on 17 July 2008.