CAT/C/60/D/662/2015 Republic of Iran in 1992. It also notes that he has never returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran, even in the period between 2002 and 2006, when he had a Swiss residence permit. 7.6 In the case at hand, the Committee notes that the complainant left the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1992, legally, and went to India, where he worked in the petroleum industry. The Committee also notes that he submitted his first application for asylum six years after he entered Switzerland and that, according to the State party, the simple fact that he waited so long to do so could cast doubt on his claim that he is at risk of persecution. The Committee further notes that, according to the State party, the complainant, of his own accord, said that his reason for submitting his first application for asylum was that he wanted to stay near his three daughters. The Committee takes note of the fact that the complainant began his political activities in Switzerland after his first asylum application and his petition for reconsideration had been rejected and, in particular, that, according to statements that he made in 2008, he did not belong to a political party, but, on the occasion of his second application for asylum, on 15 April 2013, he claimed to be a member of the Iranian Social Democratic Party. The Committee notes that, according to the State party, the complainant’s profile is “insignificant” and his activities have not been founded on a growing awareness on his part. The Committee also notes that, according to the State party, the complainant’s political activities in Switzerland, insofar as it has been verified that they occurred, will not have attracted the Iranian authorities’ attention because, even though the Iranian secret service keeps political activities conducted abroad in opposition to the regime under surveillance, that service focuses its attention on people having a particular profile who occupy positions or carry out activities that represent a serious and real threat to the current regime. 7.7 With regard to the complainant’s conversion, the Committee notes that he was unable to give his reasons for converting or to describe or cite basic elements of Christianity, such as the Ten Commandments, the structure of the New Testament or the names of the Evangelists, even though he claims to have attended Sunday school regularly as a child and, later on, religious services, in particular in India. The Committee also notes that the complainant did not know the names of the pastors or other persons who worked at the churches that he said that he had attended in Switzerland. The Committee notes that, according to the State party, the Swiss authorities’ serious doubts about his conversion led them to conclude that he has actually not converted at all. Furthermore, the Committee notes that the complainant obtained an Iranian passport while he was in Switzerland, without difficulty, despite the fact that, according to the State party, he informed the Iranian consulate in Milan of his conversion in 2001; this contention has not been refuted by the complainant.38 7.8 The Committee recalls that it must ascertain whether the complainant would currently run a risk of being subjected to torture if he were returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran.39 It notes that the complainant has had ample opportunity to provide supporting evidence and more details about his claims at the national level to the Federal Office for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court, but that the evidence provided was not such as to allow the national authorities to conclude that his conversion or his participation in political activities, insofar as it has been verified that they occurred, would place him at risk of being subjected to torture upon his return. The Committee is aware that numerous aspects of the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran remain problematic. It refers to the conclusions of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran (see A/HRC/34/65, para. 78), in which the Special Rapporteur expresses concern over the targeting and harsh treatment of Christians from Muslim backgrounds and members of other religions, which are considered “deviant faiths” by the authorities and some members of the clerical establishment. These groups continue to face arbitrary arrest, harassment and detention and are often accused of national security crimes, such as “acting against national security” or “propaganda against the State”. Under Iranian law, individuals, including Christians from Muslim backgrounds (of Muslim origin), can be 38 39 GE.17-12101 See para. 4.12 above. See, for example, communication No. 435/2010, G.B.M. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 14 November 2012, para. 7.7. 11