CAT/C/71/D/885/2018 evidence as to the credibility of the author and the overall veracity of his or her allegations, despite certain inconsistencies in the presentation of the facts or lapses of memory.7 4.3 The State party points out that the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights does not, in itself, constitute sufficient grounds for determining that a particular person would be subjected to torture upon return to his or her country of origin. The Committee must establish whether the complainant is “personally” at risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would be returned. 8 Additional grounds must be adduced in order for the risk of torture to qualify as foreseeable, present, personal and real for the purposes of article 3 (1) of the Convention.9 4.4 The State party recognizes that there are concerns about numerous aspects of the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran. There are reports of widespread and systematic use of psychological and physical torture to extract confessions. However, the situation in the country does not, in itself, constitute sufficient grounds for concluding that the complainant would be at risk of torture if he were to be returned there.10 The complainant has not demonstrated that he runs a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture. 4.5 With regard to the claims of torture or ill-treatment in the recent past and of political activity, the State party notes that the complainant does not claim to have been subjected to torture by the Iranian authorities or to have engaged in political activity in the Islamic Republic of Iran or Switzerland. 4.6 With regard to the complainant’s credibility and the factual consistency of his claims, the State party notes, first of all, that the complainant’s allegations continue to lack substance and detail and that there is nothing to indicate that he is telling the truth. Among other things, he was not able to describe his girlfriend’s father’s political activities or position in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Similarly, he could not explain how such a religious family could have allowed his girlfriend to have a relationship with him for four years or why, despite a rape charge against him, no complaint had apparently been filed. The complainant was also unable to describe the efforts he had made to resolve the situation or explain why, when he was reportedly wanted by the authorities, he had decided to apply for a passport in order to leave the country legally by plane. 4.7 The State party considers that the evidence the complainant added to the file when he submitted his application for re-examination does not substantiate his claims. Even if the documents were to be considered genuine, they do not show that the complainant would face a prison sentence of 5 to 6 years, nor do they corroborate his claim to have been prosecuted for engaging in an intimate relationship outside marriage; no such offence is mentioned in the document. There is no evidence to support the complainant’s claim that, on the basis of the judgment, he had been found guilty of inciting his girlfriend to engage in an intimate relationship. The explanation the complainant provided to the domestic authorities, namely that the judgment was a partial decision on the question of guilt, was not convincing, since in the event of separation of the proceedings, only the second decision, determining the sentence, would be enforceable. 4.8 Furthermore, the State party notes that the judgment of 5 October 2018 is entitled “enforcement order”. It does not therefore relate to criminal penalties, but rather to the enforcement of such penalties. This assessment is supported by the fact that the document contains a reference to the relevant article of the law on the enforcement of criminal judgments. However, the enforcement order does not contain a decision on the facts giving rise to the conviction or on the sentence imposed. Furthermore, given that the complainant indicated at his hearing on 6 April 2016 that his girlfriend’s father intended to settle the case with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and that, consequently, no criminal complaint would be filed against him, it seems unlikely that two months later he would have been 7 8 9 10 GE.21-12735 Ibid., para. 49. M.D.T. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/48/D/382/2009), para. 7.2; and K.N. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/20/D/94/1997), para. 10.2. M.D.T. v. Switzerland, para. 7.2; and K.N. v. Switzerland, para. 10.2. Azizi v. Switzerland (CAT/C/53/D/492/2012), para. 8.3. 5