CAT/C/53/D/470/2011 discrepancies are present in many asylum applications and there is a mounting risk of finding that asylum seekers have fabricated their statements, solely on the basis of discrepancies between interviews, and of making incorrect judgements.14 5.7 The complainant concludes that there is no well-founded reason to doubt his statements and that his description of the events is precise and highly credible. Therefore, in the light of his personal situation and the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran, he has a well-founded fear of being subjected to torture, if forcibly returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. 5.8 On 24 October 2013, the complainant submitted a statement by the Iranian Public Prosecutor, dated 22 July 2013, saying that persons who had left the country in connection with the events of 2009 would be detained upon entry and prosecuted upon return. The complainant also states that he has been actively supporting atheistic and agnostic views and has translated three atheistic videos from English into Farsi. These videos are not available online. He claims that his atheistic and agnostic views, in addition to his previous submissions and the banned publications found in his parents’ house during the search of 27 December 2009, enhance his well-founded fear of prosecution, if deported to the Islamic Republic of Iran. He explains that apostasy or abandonment of one’s religious faith — Islam, in his case — can be punishable by death in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that, in the instant case, the State party has contested neither the exhaustion of all available domestic remedies by the complainant nor the admissibility of the complaint. 6.3 The Committee considers that the complaint raises substantive issues under article 3 of the Convention and that those issues should be examined on the merits. As the Committee finds no obstacles to the admissibility, it declares the communication admissible. Consideration of the merits 7.1 In accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, the Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties concerned. 7.2 With regard to the complainant’s claim under article 3 of the Convention, the Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture, should he be returned to the Islamic 14 10 See Jane Herlihy, Peter Scragg and Stuart Turner, “Discrepancies in autobiographical memories – implications for the assessment of asylum seekers: repeated interviews study”, in BMJ, vol. 324 (9 February 2002). Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC65293/.