CAT/C/46/D/357/2008 complainant, several Kurds have been executed in the past year, or are currently on death row for supporting the armed Kurdish resistance.19 In conclusion, the complainant reiterates that, given the highly alarming human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran, a situation that has seriously deteriorated over the past few months, particularly for human rights activists and political opponents, and given that he himself left the country illegally and is a member of a double ethnic and religious minority and an active political opposition figure on the Internet and radio, he would undoubtedly be arrested if returned. He adds that there is an extremely high risk that he would be subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading acts, including the death penalty following an unfair trial.20 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claims contained in a complaint, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.2 The State party asserts that the complainant had not exhausted domestic remedies with regard to his first asylum application, since his appeal before the Federal Administrative Tribunal against the decision of the Federal Office for Migration of 25 March 2008 was rejected on 6 May 2008 because it was submitted after the legal deadline. Consequently, the aforementioned decision of the Federal Office for Migration came into force. The Committee notes, however, as the State party itself has pointed out, that the complainant’s communication before the Committee is based on his second asylum application, which he initiated on 3 June 2008 and which was rejected on 18 June 2008 by the Federal Office for Migration. On 14 July 2008, the Federal Administrative Tribunal rejected the appeal lodged by the complainant against that decision. The complainant has therefore exhausted all domestic remedies in respect of his second asylum application. Accordingly, the Committee finds that the complaint is admissible and proceeds to its consideration on the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The issue before the Committee is whether or not the complainant’s removal to the Islamic Republic of Iran would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 9.2 In assessing whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran, 19 20 and Indigenous Peoples 2010 – Iran” of 1 July 2010, which points out that non-Shiite Muslims face social discrimination and that many Sunni mosques have been destroyed in various parts of the country. The report also emphasizes that Sunnis are politically underrepresented in the provinces where they make up the majority of the population, such as Kurdistan and Khuzestan. The complainant refers to a report by Human Rights Watch entitled “Iran: Deepening Crisis on Rights” from 26 January 2011, which claims that there were many irregularities in the trials of these individuals, such as credible allegations of torture, forced confessions, and violations of the right to have access to a lawyer. The complainant refers to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Öcalan v. Turkey, application No. 46221/99 of 12 March 2003. 9