CAT/C/53/D/489/2012 standing of the woman’s husband and after his parents’ house was searched, he decided to leave Iran illegally on 3 April 2003 and enter Switzerland. 2.2 In Switzerland, the complainant became a member of the Democratic Association for Refugees (Association Démocratique pour les Refugiés – ADR), a political association with the aim of “combating the Islamic Republic and protecting human rights” in Iran. He joined the association in August 2006 and has since become the leader of the canton branch for the political activity of ADR in the cantons of Lucerne and Schwyz. He has regularly taken part in the meetings of the association’s Executive Committee. He has participated in various demonstrations across Switzerland and distributed the monthly magazine Kanoun, which is critical of the Iranian regime, including to politicians in front of the parliament in Lucerne. 2.3 On 15 April 2003, the complainant applied for asylum in Switzerland. On 21 June 2004, the Swiss Federal Office for Refugees (now the Federal Office for Migration – FOM) rejected his asylum request. On 21 June 2004, the complainant lodged an appeal against that decision with the Asylum Appeal Commission (now the Swiss Federal Administrative Tribunal – FAT), which was rejected on 14 July 2006. 2.4 On 24 May 2007, the complainant submitted a second asylum request, emphasizing his political activities in Switzerland. On 28 August 2007, FOM rejected his second request for asylum. On 18 March 2010, FAT once again rejected the appeal against the FOM decision. 2.5 On 3 August 2010, the complainant requested asylum for a third time. He argued that he had increased his political activity in exile, which had exposed him much more than previously. He also claimed that, since 1 January 2010, he had been the head of ADR for the cantons of Lucerne and Schwyz. On 16 August 2010, FOM rejected the asylum request once again, on the grounds that his increased political exposure and responsibilities had not changed the legal situation for the purposes of granting him asylum. On 24 August 2010, the complainant appealed against the decision; however, it was rejected by FAT on 12 December 2011. The decision is final. 2.6 In a letter of 19 December 2011 by the FOM and a letter of 23 December 2011 from the Office for Migration and Asylum in Lucerne, the complainant was ordered to leave the country by 3 January 2012. The complaint 3.1 The complainant claims that his forcible return to Iran would constitute a breach by Switzerland of article 3 of the Convention. 3.2 In substantiation, he claims that in Iran he would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to the Convention if he were deported, for the following reasons: (a) The general human rights situation in Iran has deteriorated since the presidential election in June 2009 and the large-scale protests it engendered. Respect for basic human rights in Iran has continued to deteriorate and the Government has shown no tolerance for peaceful protests or gatherings, routinely detaining participants and subjecting them to torture; (b) Referring to the European Court of Human Rights judgment in R.C. v. Sweden,1 the complainant submits that it is not only political leaders who are facing persecution and the risk of arbitrary arrest, ill-treatment or torture, but also peaceful 1 R.C. v. Sweden, application No. 41827/07, judgment adopted on 9 March 2010. 3