CAT/C/22/D/103/1998 page 7 4.17 Finally, the State party draws the attention of the Committee to the fact that S.M.R. has not been able to give any reasonable explanation as to why she waited for more than four months before applying for asylum in Sweden. The State party maintains that her explanation is not convincing, especially as she alleged that her husband was arrested two weeks after her arrival in Sweden. 4.18 In the State party’s view the decisive element in this case, in making the risk assessment under article 3 of the Convention, is the credibility that can be attached to the statements made by the authors of the communication. In view of the circumstances recounted above, the State party considers that S.M.R. and M.M.R. have not substantiated the claim that they would run any particular personal risk of being detained and tortured if they were to return to Iran. 4.19 The State party concludes that, in the circumstances of the present case, the authors’ return to Iran would not have the foreseeable and necessary consequence of exposing them to a real risk of torture. An enforcement of the expulsion order against the authors would therefore not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Counsel’s comments 5.1 Counsel recalls that the State party does not in any way question that S.M.R. has been imprisoned and tortured in the past. He also points out that the State party is aware of the serious human rights violations occurring in Iran, including the widespread use of torture, and concludes that there are substantial risks that S.M.R. would face torture again if returned to Iran. 5.2 Counsel further argues that the act of deporting a person to a country to which she fears to return owing to having previously been tortured, is in itself an act of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 5.3 Finally, counsel refers to a certificate submitted by a psychiatrist at the Swedish Red Cross centre for tortured refugees in Stockholm, according to which S.M.R.’s statements regarding imprisonment and torture clearly are based on her own personal experiences. The psychiatrist further states that in his view, S.M.R.’s account of how, after her release from prison in 1990, she pursued her political activities and her fear of being persecuted by the Iranian authorities are credible and genuine. The Committee’s decision on admissibility 6.1 At its twenty-first session the Committee considered the admissibility of the communication. It ascertained that the same matter had not been and was not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement, and considered that all available domestic remedies had been exhausted in view of the fact that no new circumstances existed on the basis of which the authors could file a new application with the Aliens Appeal Board. Accordingly, it decided that the communication was admissible.