CAT/C/53/D/470/2011 use of such practices.18 The Committee does not have information that this situation has significantly improved since the change in leadership in 2013.19 In this regard, the Committee takes into consideration ongoing reports of incidents of the detention and torture of political opponents.20 The Committee considers that this is all the more worrying in the light of the fact that the Islamic Republic of Iran frequently administers the death penalty, including public executions of political prisoners,21 and applies it without due process and in cases involving certain crimes that do not meet international standards for “most serious” offences.22 The Committee notes that the State party itself has recognized that the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran is preoccupying.23 7.6 In the present case, the Committee notes the complainant’s claims that he was expelled from university on account of his political views, that he was arrested by the Iranian police and detained and beaten in a van during the 27 December 2009 demonstration against the regime in power, that his parents’ house was searched subsequently on three occasions in that connection and that officials confiscated banned publications therefrom, that he left the Islamic Republic of Iran illegally fearing persecution, that the Revolutionary Tribunal summoned him, that he sought asylum in Switzerland but his asylum application was rejected, and that he has adopted atheistic and agnostic views and translated related publications into Farsi while in Switzerland. The Committee notes the complainant’s submissions that those elements demonstrate the existence of a real and personal risk of torture, should he be returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Committee also notes that the State party challenges the complainant’s credibility based on factual discrepancies, the lack of details, and his failure to prove the authenticity of the summons, for example by producing an arrest warrant in his name. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that such inconsistencies and lack of details as may exist in the author’s presentation of the facts are not material and do not raise doubts about the general veracity of the author’s claims. 24 The Committee further notes that it does not appear from the material on file that any verification of the summons has been conducted by the State party’s competent authorities. In addition, pursuant to the information contained in the 2014 report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, 69 per cent of Iranian detainees interviewed stated that they had been arrested without warrants or after responding to a verbal summons by intelligence services or revolutionary courts. 25 7.7 The Committee notes the State party’s observation that even if the complainant had demonstrated that he had left the Islamic Republic of Iran illegally and that his asylum application had been brought to the attention of the Iranian authorities, this would not be sufficient to substantiate the risk of torture or persecution for him if he were returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Committee considers, however, that the information provided by the complainant demonstrates that Iranian nationals who left the country illegally and unsuccessfully sought asylum abroad face the risk of being subjected to persecution and illtreatment.26 In this regard, the Committee notes that the State party has not refuted the complainant’s allegation that, on 22 July 2013, the Iranian Public Prosecutor stated that 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 12 A/69/356, para. 16. K.N., F.W. and S.N. v. Switzerland, para. 7.6. A/HRC/25/61, paras. 2, 4, 27–32 and 52–57; and A/25/75, paras. 7, 17–20 and 43. A/HRC/25/26, paras. 7 and 43. A/HRC/25/61, paras. 5 and 84. See para. 4.4 above. Communication No. 41/1996, Kisoki v. Sweden, Views adopted on 8 May 1996, para. 9.3; and K.N., F.W. and S.N. v. Switzerland, para. 7.7. A/HRC/25/61, para. 29. See para. 5.8 above.