CAT/C/60/D/662/2015 State party’s observations on the merits of the communication 4.1 On 3 September 2015, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the communication. It notes that the complainant left the Islamic Republic of Iran for India in 1992 to engage in gainful employment in the petroleum industry. In 2001, he arrived in Switzerland with his partner. The couple permanently separated in November 2003. The authorities subsequently decided not to renew his residence permit, which expired on 31 July 2005.12 On 31 July 2007, he filed an application for asylum in Switzerland. 4.2 The State party observes that, in order to determine whether there are substantial grounds for believing that a complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to his or her country, the Committee should take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3 (2) of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. The aim of its examination, however, is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would return. 13 Thus, the existence of a pattern of human rights violations, as referred to in article 3 (2) of the Convention, does not constitute sufficient reason for concluding that a particular person is likely to be subjected to torture upon returning to his or her country. Additional grounds must therefore be adduced in order for the risk of torture to qualify as “foreseeable, real and personal” for the purposes of article 3 (1) of the Convention. 14 As definitively established by the Committee in its general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, “the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion”. 4.3 As regards the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the State party adds that the Committee has noted that there are ongoing reports of the use of psychological and physical torture to obtain confessions, which would indicate that such practices are in widespread and systematic use, and of cases in which political opponents of the current regime are held in detention and tortured. The Committee considers this situation to be all the more alarming because the death penalty is frequently imposed in that country on people who have not had the benefit of due process guarantees and in cases involving offences that do not meet international standards in respect of the most serious crimes. 15 4.4 While the State party, too, is aware that the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran is disturbing in a number of respects, it must nonetheless point out that the country is not currently experiencing widespread violence. Accordingly, the situation in the complainant’s country of origin does not constitute, in itself, sufficient grounds for concluding that the complainant would be at risk of torture if he were to be returned. According to the settled practice of the Committee, the author of a communication must demonstrate that he or she would personally become a target of measures that are incompatible with the Convention if returned. According to the State party, in the present communication, the complainant refers to a very general type of risk for all persons abroad who have been politically active in opposing the current regime in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Furthermore, the complainant claims that his conversion to Christianity would place him at personal risk of persecution if he were to be sent back. The State party is of the view that the complainant has not demonstrated that he would face a foreseeable, personal and real risk of being subjected to torture in the event that he were sent back. 4.5 The State party recalls that torture or ill-treatment suffered by the complainant in the past would be one of the elements that should be taken into consideration when assessing the complainant’s risk of being subjected to torture or ill-treatment in the event that he 12 13 14 15 4 This decision was upheld at final instance by the Federal Court on 30 October 2006 (decision 2A.537/2006). See, among others, communication No. 94/1997, K.N. v. Switzerland, Views adopted on 19 May 1998, para. 10.2. See, among others, communication No. 100/1997, J.U.A. v. Switzerland, Views adopted on 10 November 1998, paras. 6.3 and 6.5. See communications Azizi v. Switzerland, para. 8.5; No. 489/2012, Tahmuresi v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 26 November 2014, para. 7.5; and No. 470/2011, X v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 24 November 2014, para. 7.5. GE.17-12101