CAT/C/53/D/489/2012 participants in demonstrations and anyone who opposes the current regime. The fact that Iran carries out the second largest number of death penalties annually, often after unfair or politically motivated proceedings, was also underscored; (c) Owing to the fact that the complainant left Iran illegally, there is an additional risk of his being put under scrutiny upon his return to Iran; (d) The complainant has been an active member of ADR for the cantons of Lucerne and Schwyz. By the time of the consideration by FAT of his third request for asylum he was the head of ADR in both cantons. However, FAT held that the complainant’s exposure still did not reach “a level … necessary to assume risk of persecution in Iran”. That was despite the fact that, in previous decisions, it had ruled that ADR members in high positions had a level of exposure sufficient for a risk of persecution to be assumed in the event of their forcible return to Iran. State party’s observations on the merits 4.1 On 13 June 2012, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the complaint. It considers that, although the human rights situation in Iran is of concern in several respects, Iran is not affected by generalized violence, and the complainant has not demonstrated that he runs a foreseeable, personal and real risk of being subjected to torture there. 4.2 The State party observes that the complainant declared during his first asylum procedure that he had been hit by a police officer in Iran. He did not, however, mention that incident in his complaint to the Committee, and it therefore could not be considered as a risk factor relating to his return to Iran. The State party also observes that the complainant was never politically active in Iran. Furthermore, the State party’s authorities, while examining his asylum request, did not find his claim that he would be persecuted on account of his alleged sexual relationship with the wife of a mullah credible. 4.3 With respect to the complainant’s political activity in Switzerland, the State party considers that, although the Iranian Secret Service could exercise surveillance of political activities against the Iranian regime conducted abroad, the Iranian authorities target highprofile individuals acting outside mass opposition and holding positions or deploying 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 he participates are typical activities for many exiled Iranians and would not identify the complainant as potentially dangerous to the Iranian regime even if the Iranian authorities came to know of him. 4.4 The State party asserts that the Iranian authorities are likely to be aware that many Iranians living abroad attempt to portray themselves as dissidents in order to obtain asylum. The Iranian authorities are likely to distinguish between those who are genuinely politically active and who are potentially important political agitators, and those active mainly for the ultimate purpose of obtaining a residence permit abroad. The complainant’s activities, including his participation in demonstrations, distribution of a magazine and putting his photographs on the Internet would not, in themselves, draw the attention of the Iranian authorities to him, since they are no different from the activities of many Iranians in Switzerland. ADR is active mainly in Switzerland and its activities are not known abroad. The complainant’s family was not aware of his political engagement and does not appear to have had any problems with the Iranian authorities on account of his political activities. 4.5 The State party contests the complainant’s statement that he has a particular profile due to his position within ADR. The State party considers his position as of an administrative nature. The complainant’s position of canton representative would not expose him more than any other member of ADR. The State party submits that ADR is 4