CAT/C/71/D/885/2018 evade criminal proceedings and must instead submit to them and report to the authorities. It is possible that the wording of the provision from the law on the enforcement of judgments cited in the judgment might refer to more concrete enforcement measures of which the complainant is not aware and to which he does not have access. 3.8 The complainant explains that the judgment of Marvdasht Revolutionary Court is a “coup” orchestrated by the mullah and the revolutionary judge, who is also a mullah. The sole purpose of the judgment is to preserve a semblance of legality in the proceedings against the complainant. It is therefore hardly surprising that the document does not contain a reference to any of the concrete legal provisions the complainant has allegedly contravened. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, the religious authorities influence every State structure and institution. In particular, there is no independent judiciary or police apparatus operating under the rule of law. Although the judgment submitted contains little concrete information, it attests to the fact that criminal proceedings are under way against the complainant and that they were instituted by his girlfriend’s father. It is therefore proven that the complainant has reason to fear for his life and physical integrity. 3.9 Lastly, the complainant contests the Federal Administrative Court’s judgment of 7 February 2018, which did not examine in greater detail the credibility of the risk facing him on the basis of the new evidence, but simply reprimanded the body of first instance, arguing that the new evidence should not have been examined in any substantial way since it had not been submitted on time. It is quite possible that the Iranian judgment submitted reflects a separation of the proceedings, even though it contains enforcement instructions that can be used simply as a precautionary measure to ensure the enforcement of a later judgment. It should also be noted that the complainant’s house was confiscated. The other possibility is that, in the same proceedings, another judgment had already been handed down before the judgment submitted, and that the sentence had been determined in that first judgment. Irrespective of these facts, it should be noted that the judgment originally submitted documents the fact that the father of the complainant’s girlfriend initiated criminal proceedings against him and that those proceedings resulted in a conviction. State party’s observations on the merits 4.1 On 25 March 2019, the State party submitted observations on the merits of the communication. Recalling the facts and the proceedings undertaken by the complainant in Switzerland with a view to obtaining asylum, it notes that the competent authorities have duly considered the complainant’s arguments and states that the communication does not include any new information that would invalidate the asylum authorities’ decisions. 4.2 The State party points out that, under article 3 of the Convention, States parties are prohibited from expelling, returning or extraditing a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations, including, where applicable, the existence in the State party concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. Recalling the Committee’s general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22, the State party adds that the author of a communication must establish the existence of a foreseeable, present, personal and real risk of being subjected to torture upon return to his or her country of origin,4 which is the case when the related allegations are based on credible facts. The reasons for the existence of such a risk must also appear to be substantial.5 In principle, the burden of proof therefore lies with the author of the communication, who must present an arguable case, that is, submit substantiated arguments showing that such a risk exists.6 The following elements must be taken into account to ascertain the existence of such a risk: any evidence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in the country of origin; any claims of torture or ill-treatment in the recent past and independent evidence to support those claims; the political activity of the author within or outside the country of origin; and any 4 5 6 4 Committee against Torture, general comment No. 4, para. 38. Ibid., para. 39. Ibid., para. 38. GE.21-12735