CAT/C/53/D/470/2011 into account in assessing the existence of such a risk: evidence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in the country of origin; allegations of torture or ill-treatment sustained by the complainant in the recent past, and independent evidence thereof; political activity of the author within or outside the country of origin; evidence as to the credibility of the author; and factual inconsistencies in the claim of the complainant.6 4.3 With regard to the existence of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights, the State party submits that this is not in itself a sufficient basis for concluding that an individual might be subjected to torture upon his or her return to the country of origin. The Committee should establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would return. 7 Additional grounds should be adduced for the risk of torture to qualify as “foreseeable, real and personal” under article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention.8 The risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. 9 4.4 Although the State party concedes that the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran is preoccupying, it reiterates that this is not in itself sufficient grounds for concluding that the complainant might be subjected to torture in the event of his removal. It argues that the complainant has failed to demonstrate that he would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture, if returned. 4.5 On the question of allegations of torture or ill-treatment sustained in the recent past, and the existence of independent evidence thereof, the State party underlines that the complainant has not claimed to have been subjected to torture or ill-treatment in the past. Although he claimed before the asylum authorities that he had been hit in the van after his arrest on 27 December 2009, he has not mentioned this in his communication to the Committee. In addition, the asylum authorities found his account incredible. 4.6 On the question of political activities pursued by the complainant, the State party notes that, before both the Swiss asylum authorities and the Committee, the complainant argued that because of his political activities during his student years, he had been expelled from university, that he had participated in anti-presidential demonstrations after June 2009, and that he had been arrested at the protest rally on 27 December 2009. The asylum authorities duly examined his allegations and found that they lacked credibility, particularly as they doubted that he had left the Islamic Republic of Iran on account of his involvement in the December 2009 protests. Furthermore, the complainant has not explained how his former political activities would have exposed him to the risk of being subjected to torture upon return to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Neither has he claimed to have been subjected to such treatment in the Islamic Republic of Iran as a result of his political activities. 4.7 With regard to the credibility of the complainant and the factual consistency of his claims, the Swiss asylum authorities established that the complainant’s account was implausible. In particular, they found it unrealistic that the complainant would attack the officials, as he had submitted, because they had harassed women and children during the 27 December 2009 demonstration. His allegations regarding the arrest in the van also appeared unrealistic. Whereas at the first asylum interview, on 6 September 2010, he had submitted that the officers had counted the arrestees in the van every 15 minutes, at a later stage he had submitted that his arrest had lasted 10 minutes only. Furthermore, at the second asylum 6 7 8 9 6 General comment No. 1, para. 8. Communication No. 94/1997, K.N. v. Switzerland, Views adopted on 19 May 1998, para. 10.2. Ibid., para. 10.5; and communication No. 100/1997, J.U.A. v. Switzerland, Views adopted on 10 November 1998, paras. 6.3 and 6.5. General comment No. 1, para. 6.