CAT/C/45/D/339/2008 impression of a practically non-existent monarchist movement in Iran.2 The complainant himself had admitted that he did not know very much about the party as it was an underground movement. He stated that its purpose was to overthrow clerical rule and put power into the hands of the people but was uncertain about who had founded the party, when it was founded and the possibility that it had been banned by clerical rule. He did not know any other members of the organisation apart from the two people with whom he had participated in the alleged activities and could not specify further what activities took place in Iran, as the organisation was secret. For these reasons amongst others, the Board states that the complainant had not rendered it probable that he had become an object of interest to the Iranian authorities as a result of political activities for the monarchist organization. The Board refers to Amnesty’s medical report arguing that it cannot be concluded from this report that the torture alleged was inflicted, as a result of his participation in the political activities described by him. In the context of a reference to the Committee’s jurisprudence that complete accuracy is seldom to be expected from people suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, the State party submits that the complainant has not made inconsistent or incoherent statements about his alleged political activities in Iran. 7.3 The State party submits that it relies on the view of the Board as set out above. As to the issue of background material at the Board’s disposal, it states that this material is updated on an ongoing basis and that it is considered very important that it is of the highest quality. It provides the website where the material in question may be found, describes the basis upon which such information is relied upon and provides an annex of all of the information made available to the complainant when considering his case. To conclude, the State party submits that the two medical reports in question were taken into account by the Board; that the question of whether there is any connection between the torture alleged and the complainant’s alleged political activities in Iran was carefully considered; that the Danish authorities have been unable to establish the veracity of the complainant’s statements regarding his alleged political activities; that the authorities have been unable to establish whether he was tortured by the Iranian authorities for political or other reasons; that even if it were accepted that he was tortured in Iran he has not sufficiently demonstrated that he has engaged in sustained political activities either in Iran or Denmark, which demonstrates that a return to Iran would expose him to a real, specific and personal risk of torture; and that the Board has had access to comprehensive and sufficient background material on Iran when considering the complainant’s case. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 8.1 On 20 November 2009, the complainant states that the State party’s most recent submission does not include any new information and despite maintaining that the complainant’s statements on torture were included in the authorities’ evaluation of the case, the fact remains that this information is neither mentioned in the decision of the Danish immigration Service or the Danish Refugee Board. In addition, in its decisions denying reopening the case, the Board has failed to take any position on the allegations of torture and rejected his information on his political activities regardless of his objective evidence on torture. If it had accepted the evidence, it would have required a justification of a different character in refusing to grant him asylum. It would in fact have been required to deal with the potential correlation between torture and his political activities. In its latest submission the State party submits that the complainant has not given a varying or incoherent statement about his alleged political activities in Iran. Thus, the Board’s denial of asylum relies on the argument that the complainant has not shown any particular 2 The Board refers to the information at its disposal at the time. 7