CAT/C/53/D/470/2011 human rights situation and the specific risk for Iranians returning to their home country in circumstances where they cannot produce evidence of their lawful departure from the country, would violate article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.10 The complainant therefore refutes as unsubstantiated the State party’s argumentation about the absence of a risk to him of being subjected to persecution or ill-treatment on the grounds that had left the country illegally, if he were to be deported. 5.3 He also challenges the State party’s argumentation that his submissions lack substantiation. He argues that he had attacked officials during the December 2009 demonstration as a young, politically involved student with excellent karate skills who was willing to take the risk to defend women and children against harassment. He submits that the State party’s arguments are ill-founded, as they do not meet the requirement for evaluation of the credibility of evidence used by the administrative tribunal. According to the tribunal’s practice, statements made by asylum seekers may not be contested solely on the basis of presumption or alleged contradiction, without further substantiation by the asylum authorities, with a view to shifting the responsibility for providing irrefutable evidence to asylum seekers. It is not allowed for the burden of proof only to be on the side of the applicant.11 5.4 The complainant disputes the State party’s argumentation that the summons of the Revolutionary Tribunal is not authentic, to the extent that this argumentation contradicts the findings of the administrative tribunal in another case: “Although the Federal Office for Migration doubts the authenticity of the evidence, it has not provided any element to support such conclusions. Furthermore, by reason of the principle of free evaluation of evidence applicable in the administrative proceedings, it cannot be considered that a photocopy has been manipulated or is devoid of evidentiary value merely because of its form, as long as its authenticity has been demonstrated by the applicant.”12 5.5 With reference to a report by Amnesty International, the complainant refutes the State party’s argumentation regarding the stages of criminal proceedings in the Islamic Republic of Iran. He submits, in particular, that many of those arrested, particularly political dissidents, are arrested without a warrant. The lack of transparency with which agencies have the right to carry out arrests facilitates abuses and impunity. Most trials in the Islamic Republic of Iran are grossly unfair, particularly those before Revolutionary Courts. Judges presiding over political cases in such courts are in fact mercenaries responsible for the execution of security policies of the regime. 13 The complainant reiterates that an arrest warrant in the Islamic Republic of Iran is presented as an authorisation for arrest or search, rather than being sent to, or served on, the person concerned. The manner in which the search of his parents’ house was conducted demonstrates that the authorities had been well informed about him. 5.6 The complainant confirms that he has not alleged having suffered from posttraumatic stress disorder and rejected offers of psychological assistance during the asylum proceedings. However, psychological studies show that discrepancies in submissions between interviews are common among asylum seekers, even in the absence of posttraumatic stress disorder. Discrepancies are likely to arise when details required are peripheral to interviewees’ experience and when the contents are traumatic to them. Such 10 11 12 13 European Court of Human Rights, judgement No. 41827/07 of 9 March 2010, R.C. v. Sweden, paras. 56 and 57. Samuel Werenfels, Der Begriff des Flüchtlings im schweizerischen Asylrecht (Bern, 1987), p. 135. See the administrative tribunal’s case E-5292/2006. Amnesty International, We Are Ordered to Crush You: Expanding Repression of Dissent in Iran (February 2012), p. 21. 9