CAT/C/46/D/357/2008 complainant reiterates that it is highly likely that he has attracted the attention of the Iranian authorities and that his political activities would be perceived by them not only as having defamed the current regime — which is a crime in itself in the Islamic Republic of Iran — but also as a threat to national security. 2.7 Given the deplorable human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran and the regime’s notorious repression of any form of opposition to it in the country, the complainant claims his fears of suffering acts of torture in the event of a forcible return to the Islamic Republic of Iran are well founded. He adds that the Federal Administrative Tribunal has recently decided that a person who performs the duties of a cantonal representative of the Democratic Association for Refugees runs a real risk of persecution in the event of returning to the Islamic Republic of Iran,5 and he argues that the same reasoning should therefore be applied to his case. 2.8 The complainant adds that he belongs to the Iranian Kurdish minority, which considerably increases the risk of persecution in the event of forcible return. He asserts that political actions taken against the ruling regime by members of ethnic minorities are even more likely to attract the attention of the authorities and result in even more severe penalties than those committed by Iranians of Persian descent. The complaint 3. The complainant claims that his expulsion from Switzerland to the Islamic Republic of Iran would be in violation of article 3 of the Convention, as there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture if sent back. State party’s observations on admissibility and on the merits 4.1 On 14 April 2009, the State party presented its observations on the admissibility and merits of the complaint. It argues that the complainant has failed to establish that he faces a personal, real and foreseeable risk of torture if sent back to the Islamic Republic of Iran. While noting the worrisome human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran and referring to general comment No. 1 of the Committee,6 the State party recalls that this situation is not in itself a sufficient basis for concluding that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned. It contends that he has failed to demonstrate that he faces a foreseeable, personal and real risk of torture if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. 4.2 According to the State party, the complainant declared, during the domestic judicial proceedings, that he had been arrested and detained for two weeks in 2002 for having taken part in a demonstration in support of the separatist leader Öcalan. However, the complainant did not claim to have been tortured during his detention. The State party adds that the complainant’s allegations concerning the reasons that precipitated his departure from the Islamic Republic of Iran had not been considered plausible by the Federal Office for Migration, which announced its decisions on 26 November 2007 and 25 March 2008. The State party notes, in addition, that the complainant has not exhausted all domestic remedies with regard to his first asylum application, since the appeal that he had lodged against the decision of the Federal Office for Migration of 25 March 2008 was rejected on 6 May 2008 by the Federal Administrative Tribunal because it had been submitted after the 5 6 4 August 2008. Ibid., pp. 12–13, para. 4.2.2.2. General comment No. 1, A/53/44, annex IX of 21 November 1997. The State party also refers to communications No. 94/1997, K.N. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 19 May 1998, and No. 100/1997, J.U.A. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 10 November 1998.