CAT/C/64/D/783/2016 weeks in Turkey without applying for a visa. It argues that the complainant did not fear being subjected to torture in the Islamic Republic of Iran, otherwise he would not have returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran two weeks later. 5.6 The State party recalls the complainant’s statement that he stopped having homosexual relationships after finishing high school (from the age of 19) because of the general prohibition on this activity in his country and because he wanted to preserve the reputation of his family. The State party notes that the mere fact that homosexuality is generally prohibited in the Islamic Republic of Iran is not sufficient to establish that the complainant would face ill-treatment due to his homosexuality. It recalls that the complainant’s decision to abstain from homosexual activity after finishing high school was a self-determined choice. 5.7 The State party further notes that the complainant did not encounter specific conflicts or problems with Iranian authorities. It submits that while the complainant was in the Islamic Republic of Iran, he did not express his homosexuality in the public sphere. For these reasons, it can be assumed that the Iranian authorities are not aware of the complainant’s homosexuality. The State party also recalls that during his interview with the State Secretariat for Migration, he stated that his sexuality was not important for him anymore. 5.8 Regarding the alleged political activity of the complainant in his country of origin, the State party highlights the complainant’s statement that he would like to fight against religious fanaticism in Iranian society. The State party claims that the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran does not criminalize apostasy, although it is punishable by the death penalty under sharia law which Iranian judges may apply. Moreover, it recalls that the complainant never encountered oppression or persecution from the Iranian authorities for his ideas, and believes that he mainly developed them in the private sphere. The State party also points out that the complainant did not actively engage in the Islamic Republic of Iran as an atheist, and highlights the fact that he did not submit that he had been engaging in any political activities since his arrival in Switzerland.32 5.9 The State party also emphasizes the inconsistencies of the complainant’s statements, which impugn the credibility of his submissions. For example, the complainant claims that one of the reasons why he fled the Islamic Republic of Iran was because he had had sex with a minor and feared being accused of rape by the partner’s family. However, the State party recalls that the complainant did not provide this information to the State Secretariat for Migration during the first interview, but only during the second interview, although it appears to be a decisive reason for his departure. Moreover, the State party claims that the complainant initially submitted, during the first interview, on 12 October 2015, that he had entered Europe by crossing the border on foot. However, during the second interview, on 15 November 2015, the complainant alleged that he had arrived in Europe by plane. 5.10 The State party notes that the complainant submitted that his entire family and the family of his former wife were aware of his homosexuality. Nonetheless, he failed to demonstrate that he had suffered persecution from the Iranian authorities in the recent past due to his sexual orientation, and that he risked being subjected to torture for the same reason if he were deported to the Islamic Republic of Iran. 5.11 In conclusion, the State party considers that the complainant has failed to establish serious grounds that would demonstrate a personal risk of being subjected to torture if he were deported to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Accordingly, the State party invites the Committee to declare that the removal of the complainant to the Islamic Republic of Iran would not constitute a violation of its international obligations under article 3 of the Convention. 32 The complainant submitted information about his political activities in the State party on 19 April 2018, following the State party’s observations. 7