Advance unedited version CCPR/C/133/D/2623/2015 Annex Joint opinion by Committee members Yadh Ben Achour, , Duncan Laki Muhumuza, José Santos Pais, Kobauyah Kpatcha Tchamdja and Hélène Tigroudja (dissenting) 1. We regret not being able to concur with the Committee’s decision that the facts before it do not permit it to conclude that the author’s removal to Iran would, if implemented, violate his rights under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant (para 8). There are in fact several elements in the present case that unmistakingly lead to the opposite conclusion. 2. The author of the communication is Mr. S.K., a national of Iran born in 1983. His application for asylum has been rejected by Canadian authorities. However, the author’s family has a history of persecution in Iran not only because they were Sufi, the mystical expression of Islamic faith, particularly harassed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, but also because they were pro-monarchist. The author’s father had previously been arrested, his maternal uncle was executed and other extended family members fled the country and obtained protection elsewhere. The author’s brother was executed in 2006, for having socialist views and for speaking out against the regime (paras 2.1, 4.7, 5.2). 3. The author himself was detained and mistreated for five days in Iran in 2002, for defending his female cousin from Basij members. He also experienced other incidents of harassment and coercion. He left Iran for Greece in 2005, where he stayed until 2012 and where he started attending church (paras 2.2, 4.8). In August 2012, having been informed that his mother was suffering from severe depression as she had not recovered from the execution of her son, the author decided to visit her in Iran. He was arrested there when he tried to renew his passport and was told that the authorities had information that he had attended church in Greece and demanded to know if he had converted to Christianity. The author believes that the authorities had obtained the information about him from an informant in the Iranian refugee community in Athens (para 2.3). 4. The author then fled to Norway, in September 2012, where he had some relatives (paras 2.4, 4.8) and there, he became involved with a pro-monarchist group called ‘Ashty-e Melli’. The author later travelled to Canada where he applied for asylum in January 2014, started attending church and was baptized. He has in the meantime become an active and involved member of his church (para 2.5). 5. The author claims that his conversion to Christianity would put him at risk of being executed in Iran and of being subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. He would be unable to practice his faith if deported to Iran (para 3.1). The author also argues that he does not have a valid Iranian passport and notes that Iranians returned to Iran without valid exit visas in their passports are subject to mandatory arrest and that the punishment for leaving the country illegally is one to three years imprisonment, or a fine (para 5.3). He would risk being subjected to ill-treatment while in detention and not be able to practice his faith (para 3.2). 6. The Canadian Federal Court dismissed the author’s judicial review application of the PRRA decision on 14 December 2017, finding it reasonable for the PRRA officer to have concluded that the author faced no personal risk since he did not carry out any activities related to his Christian faith in public, and did not have any official duties on behalf of the church (para 4.9). However, the State party also acknowledges (para 4.11) that, according to objective sources, “[a] conversion and an anonymous life as a converted Christian in itself do not lead to an arrest but if the conversion is followed up by other activities as for instance proselytizing and training others, the case differs…”. Objective reports also state that “converted returnees who do not carry out activities related to Christianity upon return will not be of interest to the authorities”, except if the convert had been known by the authorities before leaving. Where an individual has come to the attention of the authorities previously for reasons other than their religion, then that in combination with their religion, may put them at increased risk. 11