CAT/C/53/D/470/2011 hit on the head three or four times, approximately every 10 to 15 minutes, while in the van. Second, the administrative tribunal found it unrealistic that his handcuffs had been removed in the van and that he had been able to overpower two officers and escape. Third, it appeared incredible that his brother’s banned material had been stored in their shared room and that the brother had not been held accountable in that connection. Fourth, the complainant had failed to explain why he had kept all his identity documents, except his identity card, in one single bag, which could be interpreted as if he had tried to hide his actual itinerary from the authorities. Fifth, it appeared incredible that the officials who had searched his parents’ house had been able to influence his sentence. Sixth, the summons submitted to the Swiss authorities had no evidential value, as it could easily have been forged and purchased in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Finally, even if the complainant had left the Islamic Republic of Iran illegally, as alleged, there was no risk of him being subjected to ill-treatment or persecution in his country of origin. 2.8 With reference to reports by international non-governmental organizations, the complainant maintains that the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran has been critical, particularly after the 2009 presidential elections. In 2011 alone, 300 persons were executed. The Committee itself has stated that the human rights situation was “extremely worrisome”.2 He further claims that he had been excluded from university on the basis of his political activities, however the Swiss authorities did not assess the credibility of that information. He had participated in various demonstrations after the June 2009 elections but had not been arrested until December 2009. His account to the authorities, regarding the December 2009 demonstration and his subsequent arrest, including the persons involved, was vivid, detailed and without contradictions. A representative of a non-governmental organization who was present at the asylum interview found his statements credible and reported that he had described the officers’ appearance without hesitation. 2.9 On the points raised by the administrative tribunal, the complainant submits that he had lost track of time when he was brought to the van, because of emotional distress caused by the arrest, handcuffing and beatings by the officials. He argues that the alleged inconsistency in the description of the length of his detention does not undermine the credibility of his account. He explains that he had been released from handcuffs like other arrestees who had been forced to lie on the floor in the van. He submits that, using karate techniques, he had knocked down an officer, who, because of acute pain, had not followed him when he had escaped from the van. Furthermore, Iranians have access to and frequently consult banned publications, as confirmed by governmental and nongovernmental sources. It was not unusual, therefore, that his brother’s incriminating material had been kept in their parents’ house. In addition, the complainant had expected to destroy that material but the authorities had searched the house before he could do so. He explains that his father had kept his identity card to apply for subsidized goods. He further argues that it is generally known in the Islamic Republic of Iran that possessing banned material is punishable by death. It is not unusual that, in the context of widespread corruption in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the officials, who had searched the parents’ house, had attempted to bribe his father, by invoking the likely sentence for the complainant. Since his father had not yielded to the offer, the complainant’s statement in that connection has no bearing on his credibility. He submits that, apart from the summons submitted to the Swiss authorities, he had no other evidence to demonstrate that he had been wanted by the Iranian authorities, as arrest warrants are normally not handed over to suspects. Nothing indicates that the summons is not authentic: according to Amnesty International, forged documents are rarely used in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the 2 4 Communication No. 357/2008, Jahani v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 23 May 2011, para. 9.4.