CAT/C/64/D/783/2016 personal and real.42 The Committee also recalls that it gives considerable weight to findings of fact made by organs of the State party concerned, however it is not bound by such findings, as it can make a free assessment of the information available to it in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, taking into account all the circumstances relevant to each case.43 8.6 In assessing the risk of torture in the present case, the Committee notes the complainant’s claims that he risks being subjected to torture in the Islamic Republic of Iran because of his sexual orientation, the fact that he is an atheist and because of his activities in support of a secular State. It also notes that the complainant maintains that he was sexually abused, several times, by different sergeants during his military service in the Islamic Republic of Iran. He alleges that, as a consequence, he suffered from mental disorder and suicidal thoughts, which are corroborated by medical reports. Additionally, the Committee takes note of the complainant’s submissions that he opened a conversation club in the Islamic Republic of Iran to promote atheism and to spread his ideas about a secular State, that his former neighbours are aware of the fact that he is an atheist, and that since his arrival in Switzerland he has actively engaged in the fight against Islamic fanaticism in his country of origin. The Committee further observes the complainant’s claims that he has engaged in homosexual relationships since the age of 15, both in the Islamic Republic of Iran and in Switzerland. 8.7 The Committee notes that the State party recognizes the legitimate concern that can be expressed regarding the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Committee recalls that the most recent report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran shows that the country’s legislation continues to authorize punishments such as flogging and amputations of individuals convicted of certain offences. 44 The report stresses, for example, that the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran rejects the notion that amputations and floggings amount to torture and maintains that they are effective deterrents to criminal activity. The Committee also notes that the State party itself acknowledged that the mere fact of being homosexual establishes a serious risk of being persecuted in the Islamic Republic of Iran, claiming that the country’s Penal Code does not criminalize homosexuality in and of itself but only some homosexual acts (see para. 5.4 above). 8.8 The Committee further notes the State party’s argument that the occurrence of flagrant and systematic violations of human rights in the country of origin cannot, in itself, constitute sufficient reason to conclude that the complainant would be at risk of being subjected to torture if removed to the Islamic Republic of Iran. It also notes the State party’s claim that, regardless of the generally volatile security and human rights situation in his country of origin, the complainant has not demonstrated to the Swiss asylum authorities that he would face a personal risk of being subjected to torture if removed to the Islamic Republic of Iran due to his homosexuality, the fact that he is an atheist, or his political opinions or activities. 8.9 The Committee observes that the complainant has not expressly stated that the sexual abuses suffered during his military service were perpetrated against him because of his sexual orientation or atheism, and that he has not reported being insulted or threatened on the same grounds after those events, which occurred, according to the complainant’s submissions, on unspecified dates in 1997 and 1998. The Committee also notes the State party’s assertion that those events cannot be linked to the complainant’s departure for Europe in 2015. In this connection, the Committee reiterates that although past events may be of relevance, the principal question before the Committee is whether the complainant currently runs a risk of torture if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran.45 Accordingly, the Committee considers that the complainant has failed to establish the existence of a present risk of torture. 42 43 44 45 See T.Z. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/62/D/688/2015), para. 8.4. See the Committee’s general comment No. 4, para. 50. A/HRC/37/68, para. 29. See, for example, S.S. v. Australia (CAT/C/61/D/720/2015), para. 9.6; and G.B.M. v. Sweden, (CAT/C/49/D/435/2010), para. 7.7. 11