CAT/C/47/D/312/2007 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility: 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.2 In accordance with article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, the Committee does not consider any complaint unless it has ascertained that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies; this rule does not apply where it has been established that the application of those remedies has been unreasonably prolonged, or that it is unlikely to bring effective relief to the alleged victim. 6.3 The Committee notes that the complainant exhausted all administrative remedies. The Committee takes note that the complainant was denied legal aid by the Fylkesmannen in its decision dated 7 December 2006, and that this decision was confirmed following an administrative appeal to the Justissekretariatene, in its decision dated 26 January 2007. The Committee considers that, in the light of the fact that the complainant would not be able to pursue judicial remedies without legal aid, the denial of free legal aid to the complainant effectively renders the possibility of judicial review unavailable, and that accordingly, the complainant must be considered to have exhausted all available domestic remedies.3 6.4 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the communication should be declared inadmissible as manifestly unfounded. The Committee considers, however, that the complaint raises substantive issues under article 3 of the Convention, which should be examined on the merits. Accordingly, the Committee finds the communication admissible. Consideration of merits: 7.1 The Committee must determine whether the forced return of the complainant to the Islamic Republic of Iran would violate the State party’s obligations under article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention not to expel or return (“refouler”) an individual to another State, where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 7.2 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1 (1996) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention,4 and its case law, which state that the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. Although the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable, the Committee recalls that the burden of proof is generally placed on the complainant, who must present an arguable case establishing that he runs a “foreseeable, real and personal” risk.5 Furthermore, in its general comment No. 1 the Committee states that it must also determine whether the complainant has engaged in political activity within or outside the State concerned that would appear to make him particularly vulnerable to the risk of being subjected to torture (para. 8 (e)). The Committee also recalls that, while it gives considerable weight to the findings of fact of the 3 4 5 6 Z.T. (No. 2) v. Norway (footnote 1 above). Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-third Session, Supplement No. 44 (A/53/44 and Corr.1), annex IX. See general comment No. 1 of the Committee, and communication No. 203/2002, A.R. v. The Netherlands, decision adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 7.3.