CAT/C/63/D/744/2016 Advance unedited version 4.15 The State party concludes that the complainant has failed to demonstrate that there are substantial grounds for believing that he would personally be at a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture within the meaning of the Convention upon return to Iraq. Since the complainant’s claim fails to attain the basic level of substantiation, the communication should be declared inadmissible as being manifestly unfounded. Should the Committee consider the communication admissible, the State party submits that an enforcement of the expulsion order against the complainant would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 4 August 2016 and 6 September 2017, the complainant submitted comments on the State party’s observations. As to the State party’s argument that the communication should be declared inadmissible because the European Court has already examined the same matter, the complainant reiterates that the Committee should examine the case because the information adduced after the inadmissibility decision issued by the European Court constitutes new information which was not examined by that Court and which proves the severe risk that he would face in the event of deportation. That information shows that Iran’s influence over Iraq is increasing and also confirms that Iran has acted periodically against Iranian opposition groups based in Iraq and that the situation of the Iranian Kurds and members of the KDPI has deteriorated. 5.2 On the merits, after reminding that the prohibition of torture is absolute, the complainant assumes that it is less important that domestic authorities have had ample information at hand when making their decisions if the complainant is still at risk of being subjected to ill-treatment in breach of article 3 of the Convention upon return to Iraq. Considering that the very existence of a set of rules and procedures does not guarantee that their application is always correct, the complainant argues that State party’s arguments are ineffectual, and that an examination of his complaint by the Committee is highly relevant. 5.3 As far as the evaluation of evidence is concerned, the complainant declares that a piece of evidence is not necessarily of less value just because it is “of a simple nature.” The evidence must be seen and evaluated together with the applicant’s story and other evidence, as well as known information about the country of origin. He deplores that it is somewhat symptomatic for the Swedish migration authorities to dismiss the evidentiary value of evidence such as passports, national ID cards and other forms of identification on the grounds of being “of a simple nature.” He considers that evidence must be attributed a cumulative value, especially in cases where an applicant’s credibility is not questioned, and recalls that neither the domestic migration authorities nor the State party have questioned his credibility regarding his membership of the KDPI or his and his family high involvement within the political sphere. 5.4 The complainant then highlights the evidence supporting his claims: a documentary by Al-Jazeera that focuses on his grandfather and his commitment as a political figure to the KDPI, and mentions the complainant by his name, making it clear that he is related to his grandfather; several certificates from the KDPI relating to his grandfather which, taken together, clearly establish an indisputable connection between the complainant and his well-known grandfather, and his connection with Iran. There is therefore little reason to question the authenticity of those documents, as well as his claim of need for protection. 5.5 Referring to the State party’s assertion that Iranian refugees in the KRI normally receive Iraqi ID cards, residence permits and UNHCR cards, the complainant highlights that he has been in the KRI for a very long time, he was born there and his family moved there during the regime of Saddam Hussein, when such documents were not delivered to Iranian refugees who arrived in that region at that time. The complainant therefore considers that country information dated 2013 does not address his situation adequately. Even if he was in possession of such documents at some point, the fact that he has not presented them cannot lead to the conclusion that he is not a refugee from Iran, born in Iraq. 5.6 The complainant further insists that he has continued his political involvement as an active member of the KDPI during his stay in Sweden and, as already stated in domestic proceedings, he appeared on various occasions in the media. He must therefore be considered at risk of being subjected to ill-treatment based on his political affiliation and 10