CAT/C/64/D/783/2016 8.10 The Committee takes note of the complainant’s medical certificates from 2016, which indicate that he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and suicidal thoughts and that his state of mental health required the continuation of psychiatric therapy. The Committee observes, however, that there is insufficient evidence to determine the cause of the mental disorder with regard to the alleged acts of torture, 46 and to conclude that the current state of the complainant’s mental health — given that the latest medical certificates were issued two years ago — prevents the State party from deporting him to the Islamic Republic of Iran. 8.11 The Committee takes note of the State party’s arguments that while in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the complainant did not express his homosexuality in the public sphere. It also notes the complainant’s claim that his abstinence was imposed on him rather than selfdetermined, and that he cannot be expected to conceal his homosexuality in the Islamic Republic of Iran to avoid persecution. However, the Committee also notes the State party’s submission that the mere fact that homosexuality is generally prohibited in the Islamic Republic of Iran is not sufficient to establish that it constitutes a risk for ill-treatment. In this context, the Committee observes that the complainant has not claimed that the Iranian authorities were aware of his sexual orientation, atheism and political opinions, or that he would express his homosexuality in the public sphere. Moreover, the Committee notes that the State party considered the inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements during the asylum interviews as impugning the credibility of his assertions, and that the complainant explained such inconsistencies citing the lack of trust. 8.12 As regards the complainant’s claims of flaws during the asylum procedures, the Committee observes the State party’s view that the asylum procedures were objective and that there were no signs of arbitrariness or denial of justice. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the complainant has not submitted convincing evidence for it to conclude that the national asylum proceedings, which were reviewed by the Federal Administrative Tribunal, suffered from any irregularities. 8.13 Regarding the complainant’s political activities, the Committee further notes the State party’s claim that the complainant did not actively and publicly defend his ideas and believes that he mainly developed them in the private sphere, 47 and that he has never encountered oppression or persecution from the Iranian authorities for his opinions. The Committee also notes the complainant’s submission reporting his recent political activities in the State party, where he created an online blog to share his ideas of a secular State for his country of origin and participated in the activities of an atheist association. However, the Committee considers that the complainant has not substantiated his claim that he would have a particular political profile that would make him a target for persecution. In the Committee’s view, the complainant has also failed to adduce sufficient evidence about the conduct of political activity of such significance that he would attract the interest of the Iranian authorities. Neither has he submitted — for the purposes of establishing that he would face a personal risk of being tortured if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran — any other evidence suggesting that the authorities in his country of origin, such as the police or other security services, have been looking for him. 48 8.14 As to the complainant’s allegation that he would be arrested and interrogated upon return to the Islamic Republic of Iran due to his long stay abroad, the Committee recalls that the mere risk of being arrested and interrogated is not sufficient to conclude that there is also a risk of being subjected to torture. 49 The Committee recalls that the occurrence of human rights violations in the complainant’s country of origin is not, of itself, sufficient for it to conclude that a complainant is personally at risk of being tortured. On the basis of the information before it, the Committee concludes that the complainant has not provided proof that his homosexuality, atheism, political opinions or activities are of such significance as to attract the interest of the authorities of his country of origin. 46 47 48 49 12 See, for example, D.R. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/63/D/673/2015), para. 7.6. See, for example, R.H. v. Sweden (CAT/C/63/D/750/2016), para. 8.7. See, for example, I.E. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/62/D/683/2015), para. 7.6. See, for example, P.Q.L. v. Canada (CAT/C/19/D/57/1996), para. 10.5.