CAT/C/45/D/339/2008 9.6 In assessing the risk of torture in the present case, the Committee notes the complainant’s contention that there is a foreseeable risk that he will be torture if returned to Iran based on his claims of past detention and torture, as a result of his political activities, and the recommencement of his political activities upon arrival in Denmark. It notes his claim that the State party did not take his allegations of torture into account, and that it never formed a view on the veracity of the contents of his medical reports, which allegedly prove that he had in fact been tortured. 9.7 Following a request by the Committee in its Admissibility Decision, for further clarification from the State party on the allegations of past torture, the latter referred to an advisory opinion from the Refugee Board. The Board indicated that it had in fact taken the complainant’s allegations into account, including the medical reports in question and that in fact it had referred to these reports in its decisions of 27 September 2004, 24 January 2006, 22 December 2006 and 10 July 2007. Although the State party does not come to a decision on the veracity of the contents of the medical reports, it neither confirms nor denies the allegations of torture. On two occasions it states that it does not “dismiss” these allegations. It questions the complainant’s claims relating to his involvement in political activities and is of the view that even if it were to accept that he had been tortured in the past, he has failed to relate these allegations to any political involvement. 9.8 The Committee finds that it is probable, based on the medical reports provided by the complainant, which indicate that his injuries are consistent with his allegations, that he was detained and tortured as alleged. It also notes that the State party does not dispute this claim of past torture but argues that he was unlikely to have been subjected to torture on the basis of involvement with the monarchists, given their low level of activity in Iran. As to the general human rights situation in Iran, the Committee is concerned with the deteriorating situation since the elections of June 2009, including with respect to a report of six independent UN experts in July 2009, who questioned the legal basis for the arrests of journalists, human rights defenders, opposition supporters and scores of demonstrators, giving rise to concern for the arbitrary detention of individuals legitimately exercising their right to freedom of expression, opinion and assembly4. In particular, the Committee is concerned about reports that monarchists have been recently targeted in Iran. In light of the above, including the complainant’s corroborated claims of past torture, the Committee is of the view that there are sufficient arguments to conclude that the complainant would face a personal risk of torture if forcibly returned to Iran. 9.9 The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention, is of the view that the forcible return of the complainant to Iran would constitute a breach by Denmark of his rights under article 3 of the Convention. 10. In pursuance of rule 112, paragraph 5, of its rules of procedure, the Committee invites the State party to inform it, within 90 days from the date of the transmittal of this decision, of the steps it has taken in accordance with the above observations. [Adopted in English, French, and Spanish, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic, Russian and Chinese as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.] 4 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=8383&LangID=E. Also see the compilation for the Universal Periodic Review of Iran in November 2009. A/HRC/WG.6/7/IRN/2 (25 novembre 2009), par exemple paras. 28, 31 et 56 ; et A/HRC/WG.6/7/IRN/3 (30 novembre 2009), para. 28-29.]. 9