CAT/C/71/D/885/2018 on the question of guilt but rather an enforcement order, the last line of which referred to a law on the enforcement of judgments. The Federal Administrative Court therefore considered that the alleged threat to the complainant was unfounded, in spite of the new evidence. The complaint 3.1 The complainant maintains that he is a victim of a violation of article 3 of the Convention by the State party, given that the Swiss authorities have ordered his expulsion to a country where he will certainly be at risk of being subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 3.2 Contrary to the opinion of the State Secretariat for Migration in its decision of 11 January 2018, the complainant considers that the documents submitted are perfectly sufficient to substantiate the alleged threat. The State party handled the decision inappropriately, as if the Islamic Republic of Iran were governed by the rule of law. The lack of substance of the judgment issued against him in the Islamic Republic of Iran is entirely plausible; the mere fact that the judgment exists is worthy of note. Against the backdrop of Islamic theocracy in the country, more evidence documenting the credibility of a threat simply cannot be expected. 3.3 The complainant explains that the judgment of 5 October 2016 of Marvdasht Revolutionary Court was issued in his absence, so it might relate only to the question of guilt, as the sentence itself would be determined following his return to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Since the judgment is called an “enforcement order” and the last line of it refers to a law on the enforcement of judgments, it is also possible that a sentence has already been handed down in another judgment of which the complainant is not aware. The complainant does not know what the formal prison sentence would be: 5 to 6 years is an estimate based on the provisions of the Criminal Code. 3.4 The complainant confirms that, contrary to the presumption made by the State Secretariat for Migration, there are no previous criminal proceedings or judgments to which the judgment of 5 October 2016 might refer. The proceedings do not date back to the time of the ordinary asylum procedure. The Secretariat’s presumption is based on a misunderstanding in the translation of the judgment: the original text does not refer to a previous judgment, but to the same judgment, citing the file number displayed in the upper left corner of the original, which was translated into German as “Aktenzeichen”, or reference number. The summonses have the same number listed under “reference number”, proving that it is in fact the file or case number. 3.5 The judgment must be understood in the context of the Eastern culture of shame. The mullah has taken care to minimize the humiliation of his daughter and the family. By using the terms “deception and affront”, the allegations against the complainant are deliberately expressed in a vague manner. The details of the dishonour falling upon the mullah’s family, and thus upon him as head of the family, are deliberately omitted, at least in the formal text. As a mullah, he ensured that there was no official text indicating that his daughter had engaged in an intimate relationship outside marriage in a manner inconsistent with sharia and with a man whom he had not chosen. It should also be noted that the girl’s father did not file a complaint in the complainant’s home town of Tabriz, but in Tehran, some 800 km away.3 3.6 The mullah’s tainted family honour would be restored only once the complainant had disappeared, either by being placed permanently in an Iranian prison, where he would undoubtedly be tortured, or by being killed. Since the religious police in the Islamic Republic of Iran influence and supervise the State’s every action, the complainant cannot expect to receive any State protection. He would therefore be at serious risk of torture or other inhuman treatment in that country. 3.7 The complainant recognizes that the judgment of 5 October 2016 does not contain any direct instructions. It is conceivable and plausible that this means that he must no longer 3 GE.21-12735 According to the complainant, the mullah did not initially file a complaint against him, but did so only after his daughter returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran in March 2016 at her father’s insistence, which caused her to fear for the well-being of other members of her family. 3