CAT/C/60/D/662/2015 obey it in daily life (see the reference to legal proceedings and criminal convictions for numerous thefts in the cantons of Ticino and Lucerne in the interim decision of the Federal Administrative Court of 22 August 2011, annex 11). What is more, the complainant was said to have gone to a Baptist church only at Christmas in Ticino. 4.13 According to the State party, as noted by the Federal Administrative Court, the complainant’s lack of knowledge about Christianity and his behaviour are surprising in a convert, especially if he claims to have attended Sunday school (as a child) and, later, religious services regularly (particularly in India). These factors not only fail to substantiate the presence of real religious convictions but also mean that his claim that he would be regarded as an apostate lacks credibility.27 The State party maintains that, in the course of the consideration of his second application for asylum, the complainant repeated his statements regarding his conversion to Christianity but failed to dispel the serious doubts on the part of the Swiss authorities that had led them to conclude that he had not converted to Christianity at all. When asked to describe briefly his reasons for converting, he fell back on clichés. In addition, his claims have been contradictory and, in some cases, illogical. In his application for asylum of 16 April 2013, he stated that he read the Bible, but, at the hearing, he said that he was lazy and did not like to read. The complainant said that he was fond of the Gospel According to John, but, when asked to give reasons for that preference, he admitted that he did not remember what it says. Furthermore, the complainant did not know the names of the church pastors (or those of other people who work there). It follows from the foregoing that the complainant’s claim that he explained the reasons for his conversion to compatriots has not been substantiated either. 4.14 The State party contends that the complainant’s conduct while in Switzerland has not been such as to create a real, specific risk of being subjected to torture by the Iranian authorities. The complainant’s profile as an opponent of the regime is not such as to prompt the Iranian authorities to consider him a danger, nor have his religious or other activities on his website been such as to attract the Iranian authorities’ attention. In sum, nothing in his case file indicates that the Iranian authorities are aware of his activities or have taken any action against him because of those activities. 4.15 The State party concludes by noting that all the complainant’s arguments concerning a risk of persecution in the Islamic Republic of Iran and, in particular, his activities in Switzerland have been thoroughly examined by the Swiss authorities. The complainant’s communication provides no new information or evidence, nor does the complainant cite any procedural errors. The State party recalls that it is the Committee’s practice to maintain that “it is within the purview of the courts of the States parties to the Convention to assess the facts and evidence in a case”.28 In particular, the Committee “must assess the facts and evidence in a given case, once it has been ascertained that the manner in which the evidence was evaluated was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice”.29 However, in the instant case, the submissions of the complainant do not show that the State party’s consideration of the matter has been flawed by any such irregularities. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s submissions 5.1 On 4 March 2016, in response to the observations of the State party concerning his political activities in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the complainant admits that he was not politically active when he was there. Nonetheless, he affirms that his reasons for leaving the Islamic Republic of Iran were political. Because his father had worked for the Government under the Shah, the current Government distrusted his family. In fact, after the revolution, his family’s home had been confiscated by the secret police. Furthermore, his father is still banned from leaving the country. In addition, in 1991, the complainant worked for Energy Venture, a United States/Canadian petroleum company. At the time, he was the only Iranian working there who spoke English, and this led the Iranian authorities to suspect that he was a spy. The complainant states that he was arrested and interrogated twice about his 27 28 29 GE.17-12101 Judgment of the Federal Administrative Court of 16 December 2008, consid. 4.1, annex 4. Communication No. 419/2010, Ktiti v. Morocco, decision adopted on 26 May 2011, para. 8.7. Communication No. 293/2006, J.A.M.O. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 9 May 2008, para. 10.5. 7