CAT/C/53/D/470/2011 address indicated on the summons is commonly used as the nearest reference to his exact address. The complainant also submits that leaving the Islamic Republic of Iran illegally is punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment or a fine, and would lead to his combined prosecution, also on the charges brought against him prior to his departure from the Islamic Republic of Iran, and possibly, to a heavier sentence.3 The complaint 3.1 The complainant argues that his forcible return to the Islamic Republic of Iran would constitute a breach, by Switzerland, of its obligations under article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention. He submits that he repeatedly expressed critical views against the Iranian regime and that he was arrested, on 27 December 2009, during a demonstration against the regime then in place. He was accused of fomenting unrest, possessing banned material and injuring an official. In this connection, he faces a long prison sentence and, possibly, capital punishment in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Torture is widespread in Iranian prisons; a study by the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment stated that there were credible allegations that the country’s security forces committed politically motivated torture following demonstrations in 2009. 4 Furthermore, since he left the Islamic Republic of Iran illegally and is a failed asylum seeker,3 he will be particularly exposed to persecution upon return. 3.2 In the light of the above, the complainant claims that, if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran, he would face a real and imminent risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to the Convention. 3.3 In his further submissions, the complainant contended that his adoption of atheistic and agnostic views constitutes an additional risk for him, if he were deported to the Islamic Republic of Iran, as abandonment of Islam can be punishable by death there.5 State party’s observations on admissibility and on the merits 4.1 On 18 January 2012, the State party submitted its observations on the merits. It recalls the facts of the case and the asylum proceedings pursued by the complainant in Switzerland. It notes that the asylum authorities gave due consideration to his arguments. It states that the present communication does not present any new elements that would call into question the decisions of the asylum authorities. 4.2 The State party recalls that, under article 3 of the Convention, States parties are prohibited from expelling, returning or extraditing a person to another State where there exist substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be subjected to torture. To determine the existence of such grounds, the competent authorities must take into account all relevant considerations, including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. With reference to the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, the State party adds that the complainant should establish the existence of a “personal, present and real” risk of being subjected to torture upon return to the country of origin. The existence of such a risk must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. Additional grounds must exist in order for the risk of torture to qualify as real. The following elements must be taken 3 4 5 United Kingdom Border Agency, “Iran: country of origin information report”, 28 June 2011, para. 31.21 (f). United States Department of State, “2010 country reports on human rights practices – Iran”, 8 April 2011. See para. 5.8 below. 5