CAT/C/53/D/470/2011 Iranians who had left the country in connection with the 2009 protests would be arrested and prosecuted upon return. 27 The Committee also takes into consideration the reports by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran on the lack of progress by the Iranian authorities in ending harassment, intimidation, persecution and arbitrary detention of political opponents, including students, in connection with the mass demonstrations following the 2009 elections.28 7.8 The Committee also notes that the State party has not addressed the complainant’s argument regarding the death sentence that he might face if he were returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran, for his adoption of atheistic and agnostic views, which might be interpreted by the Iranian authorities as abandonment of Islam.29 It also observes that recent reports by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran and by the Secretary-General indicate that low-level opposition activists, including university students, are closely monitored in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and that political opponents, human rights defenders, journalists and members of religious minorities are arrested, charged, prosecuted and convicted for national security crimes or crimes of a political nature.30 It further notes that, according to official reports, the Iranian authorities engage in extensive attempts to identify and to sanction, including by the death sentence, Iranian citizens who insult Islam or criticize the Iranian Government on the Internet.31 It considers, therefore, that the complainant, in the light of his expulsion from university, participation in the 2009 protests, illegal departure from the Islamic Republic of Iran, failed asylum application abroad and religious views, would most likely attract the attention of the authorities upon return to his country of origin, thus significantly increasing the risk of him being arrested, tortured and sentenced to death, if he were returned. 7.9 Accordingly, the Committee considers that substantial grounds exist for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture if he were returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Furthermore, the Committee notes that, since the Islamic Republic of Iran is not a party to the Convention, the complainant would be deprived of the legal option of recourse to the Committee for protection of any kind, if he were to be deported to the Islamic Republic of Iran.32 8. In the light of the above, the Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, concludes that the complainant’s deportation to the Islamic Republic of Iran would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 9. The Committee is of the view that the State party has an obligation to refrain from forcibly returning the complainant to the Islamic Republic of Iran or to any other country where he runs a real risk of being expelled or returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Pursuant to rule 118, paragraph 5, of its rules of procedure, the Committee invites the State party to inform it, within 90 days of the date of transmittal of the present decision, of the steps that it has taken in response to the present decision. 27 28 29 30 31 32 See para. 5.8 above. A/68/503, para. 30; and General Assembly resolution 64/176, para. 2 (h). See para. 5.8 above. A/HRC/25/61, paras. 88–90; and A/68/503, paras. 6–15 and 88–90. A/67/369, paras. 15–18. See, for example, K.N., F.W. and S.N. v. Switzerland, para. 7.8. 13