CAT/C/60/D/662/2015 returned to his country. In the course of the consideration of his first application for asylum, the complainant stated that he had had problems with the Iranian authorities before his departure for India in 1992. In his communication, he does not maintain these claims, which were found to lack credibility by the Federal Office for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court16 following a thorough examination of the case. What is more, the complainant has never said that he was tortured by the Iranian authorities. 4.6 According to the State party, another element that should be taken into account when evaluating the complainant’s risk of being subjected to torture if he were to return to his country is his involvement in political activities in his country of origin or elsewhere. The State party recalls that the complainant has not claimed, either to the Swiss authorities or the Committee, to have been politically active in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The State party contends that the instant case differs from several other recent cases in this respect: X had had problems in the Islamic Republic of Iran because of political activism; 17 Mr. Azizi had had to flee to Iraq because of his political activities; 18 and X and Z belonged to a family of political militants. 19 The State party also contends that, during the time that the complainant was in India, between 1992 and 2001, he did not engage in political activities in exile. Nor did he mention any such activities in Switzerland during the processing of his first application for asylum in 2008 or in the course of his applications for reconsideration in 2009 and 2010. It was not until he had filed his second application for asylum in 2013 that the complainant claimed to have engaged in political activities in Switzerland that would put him at risk of prosecution if he were to return to the Islamic Republic of Iran. The complainant’s statements to the Committee concerning his political activities in Switzerland are very vague, and the letters confirming those statements do not provide any information that would help to substantiate his involvement. 4.7 The State party points out that the cases that have come before the Federal Administrative Court indicate that the Iranian secret service may keep track of opposition political activities abroad, but that the authorities focus their attention primarily on persons having a particular profile, whose actions fall outside the scope of the usual types of mass protests and who occupy positions or carry out activities that represent a serious and real threat to the Iranian regime. The Court is also of the view that occupying positions in opposition organizations or involvement in influential actions are what put a person at risk, not membership or involvement in typical political activities, such as participation in demonstrations, staffing a stand or distributing political material. 20 In view of the numerous political activities of Iranians in exile, the Court notes that, to its knowledge, the Iranian authorities are interested in persons only when they are true opponents who engage in political activities that are of such a nature as to represent a threat to the political system. They do not take any great interest in people whose activities are clearly being undertaken primarily as a means of obtaining a residence permit by advancing personal grounds for seeking asylum. The Court notes that the Iranian authorities are aware of the fact that many asylum seekers become involved in political activity in exile only once their application for asylum has been denied, which casts a great deal of doubt on the authenticity of their involvement. Those authorities are quite capable of distinguishing political activities that reflect a serious personal conviction and have a significant potential for fuelling unrest from activities that people engage in primarily for the purpose of obtaining a residence permit. 4.8 The State party maintains that, during the complainant’s asylum hearing, he said that he had joined other groups that he had learned about in Lucerne, uploaded news and videos on the Internet and sent messages to compatriots in the Islamic Republic of Iran via Facebook and Twitter. He has stated that he does not belong to a political party. He had contacts with several different Iranian political groups in Switzerland and took part in two 16 17 18 19 20 GE.17-12101 Judgment of the Federal Administrative Court of 16 December 2008, consid. 4.1, annex 4. See X v. Switzerland, para. 7.6. See Azizi v. Switzerland, para. 2.1. See X and Z v. Finland, communications Nos. 483/2011 and 485/2011, decision adopted on 12 May 2014. See, for example, the judgment of the Federal Administrative Court of 21 January 2008 (D4902/2007). In an authoritative decision handed down on 9 July 2009 (D-3357/2006, consid. 7.4.3), the Court provided clarification on this point. 5