CAT/C/47/D/312/2007 broadcasts, in particular since the 2009 presidential elections (art.19) (ibid., para. 27). 7.7 The Committee takes note of the previous interest of the Iranian authorities in the complainant, as demonstrated by his arrest and interrogation, and the summons received by him in 2003 to appear before the Revolutionary Court in Tehran, due to his journalistic activities. The Committee notes that the complainant does not submit that he was tortured at any time by the Iranian authorities during his arrest and interrogation in 2003. However, the Committee notes the complainant’s submission of his continued journalistic activities since his arrival in Norway, and the submission that his weblogs were shut down by the Iranian authorities during that time. The Committee is therefore of the opinion that the complainant could well have maintained the continued attention of the Iranian authorities. 7.8 In relation to the alleged sentence in absentia to five years’ imprisonment, the Committee notes the State party’s submission that the court documents presented in support of the asylum application, and in support of the complainant’s claim that he would be at risk of imprisonment and torture if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran, are not authentic, in accordance with a verification conducted by the Norwegian Embassy in Tehran. On the other hand, the Committee notes that the complainant contested the verification of the documents conducted by the State party, and maintains that he has been sentenced to five years’ imprisonment by the Revolutionary Court in Tehran. The Committee is not in a position to assess the verification of the court documents regarding the alleged sentence in absentia to five years’ imprisonment, taking into consideration that the State party and the complainant have presented contradictory statements, without corroborating evidence. 7.9 The Committee notes however that the two summons for the complainant to appear before the Revolutionary Court have not been contested, and that these summons, combined with the fact that the complainant did not appear before the Revolutionary Court in Tehran at the time that he was summoned, in themselves constitute an element of high risk to the complainant. Finally, the Committee notes that, since the Islamic Republic of Iran is not a party to the Convention, the complainant would be deprived of the option to address the Committee for protection of any kind, if he were to be deported to Iran. 8. In the light of the above, and taking into account all the circumstances of the case and the information presented before it, the Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, concludes that the decision of the State party to return the complainant to the Islamic Republic of Iran would constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 9. In conformity with rule 118 (formerly rule 112), paragraph 5, of its rules of procedure, the Committee wishes to be informed, within 90 days, on the steps taken by the State party to respond to the present decision. [Adopted in English, French and Spanish, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic, Chinese and Russian as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.] 8