CAT/C/22/D/104/1998 page 6 4.14 On 10 July 1997, the Board decided to stay the enforcement of the refusal of entry decision. It then made arrangements for an investigation of the judgement through the Swedish Embassy in Tehran. 4.15 In a statement dated 4 September 1997, the Embassy concluded that the judgement and the document from the prosecution authority were clear forgeries. After having been informed of the Embassy's communication, the author wrote to the Board insisting that he had given truthful information that he was not aware that the documents were not genuine. He also insisted that he risked capital punishment if he returns to Iran. 4.16 In its decision of 30 October 1997 the Board did not find cause to make any other assessment than the one which was presented in the Embassy's communication. In an overall assessment of the material presented together with what had previously emerged in the case, the Board found that the circumstances did not confirm that the author was in need of protection under the Aliens Act. Furthermore, the Board did not find grounds to consider that an enforcement of the expulsion would be contrary to humanitarian requirements. It therefore rejected the new application. 4.17 The State party argues that in determining whether article 3 of the Convention applies in a particular case the following considerations are relevant: (a) the general situation of human rights in the receiving country, although the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights is not in and of itself determinative; (b) the individual concerned must be personally at risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he would be returning; and (c) “substantial grounds” in article 3 (1) means that the risk of the individual being tortured if returned is a “foreseeable and necessary consequence”. 4.18 The State party is aware that the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran is reported to be a major abuser of human rights. It leaves it to the Committee to decide whether there exists at present a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in the country. 4.19 Regarding the personal risk of being subjected to torture in Iran the State party contends that several provisions in the Aliens Act reflect almost exactly the principle laid down in article 3 of the Convention. In applying article 3 therefore the Committee is carrying out virtually the same test as the Swedish authorities. In making this test it should be taken into account that a mere possibility of torture cannot in itself be sufficient to constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. The risk must be substantiated with regard to the circumstances and the asylum-seeker's personal conditions insofar as they can be objectively certified. 4.20 In the present case the Swedish authorities have clearly found no substantial grounds for believing that the author would be at risk of being subjected to torture upon his return to Iran. The State party shares the assessment made by the Swedish authorities in this respect and would like to point out certain circumstances which are considered to be of special importance in this context.