CAT/C/64/D/783/2016 as stated during the interview with the State Secretariat for Migration, as he was gang-raped in prison.36 The complainant also explains that he returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran after having spent two weeks in Turkey because he no longer had any resources and was living on the street. Not having available to him any legal advice on the matter, he did not know that he could apply for asylum there. 6.7 The complainant argues that the State party’s submission that he did not spread his atheist opinions publicly is wrong, given that he had an office in the Islamic Republic of Iran where he held regular meetings to exchange such ideas. He further recalls that, as stated during his first interview with the State Secretariat for Migration, he publicly insulted the Prophet Muhammad once in front of his neighbours during a religious gathering. He also notes that he even burned a Qur’an while in a detention centre in the State party, and indicates that he would not be able to hide his ideas in the Islamic Republic of Iran where he would be subjected to corporal punishment for apostasy and blasphemy. 6.8 He further asserts that he became very active in the State party contacting associations fighting against fanaticism. He even created an online blog where he criticizes Islam and challenges the existence of God.37 The complainant has actively participated in the activities of an atheist association in the State party called Free Thinkers. 38 He also recently recounted his story as an Iranian gay man and atheist during a meeting of the Säkulare Migranten (“secular migrants”) association. 6.9 In reference to the State party’s argument that the complainant disclosed his sexual relationship with one of his students only during the second interview with the State Secretariat for Migration, the complainant explains that he was ashamed of his homosexuality and considered that this behaviour was also prohibited in the State party. He contends that he was not able to build up the necessary trust to tell the interrogator about it during the first asylum interview. He also argues that he never intended to pretend that he came to Europe by air, since he reiterates that he crossed the border on foot. In that regard, he explains that the word “flight” in his statement was not meant to refer to air transportation, but generally to the idea of fleeing the country. 6.10 The complainant concludes that his deportation to the Islamic Republic of Iran would expose him to a personal risk of being subjected to torture and his life would be in danger, on account of being openly gay and atheist. If he were removed, he would probably be arrested at the airport in Tehran, to be interrogated by the revolutionary forces about his long stay abroad. He claims to have demonstrated a risk of irreparable harm. Accordingly, he submits that the State party’s authorities failed to carry out an individual and thorough risk assessment when considering his asylum application. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether the communication is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (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. 7.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the 36 37 38 The complainant does not provide a specific date, though. However, according to his initial statements of facts, he was detained on an unknown date between 1997 (the first time that he was sent to the military camp to perform his military service) and 2002 (when he came back to his family’s home and married his wife). The complainant provides a weblink to visit his blog. The complainant attaches a letter from the current president of the association, confirming the complainant’s active and public participation in the activities of Free Thinkers Winterthur. The association is comprised of public figures who are known for their efforts to combat fanaticism in the Islamic Republic of Iran. 9