CAT/C/63/D/673/2015 “foreseeable, real and personal” within the meaning of article 3 (1) of the Convention. 14 The risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion.15 4.4 The State party considers that, although the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran is disturbing in a number of respects, the country is not experiencing widespread violence. It reiterates that the situation in the complainant’s country of origin does not constitute, in itself, sufficient grounds for concluding that the complainant would be at risk of torture if he were to be returned there. The complainant refers to a very general type of risk for all persons abroad who have been politically active in opposing the current regime in the Islamic Republic of Iran, but he has been unable to demonstrate that he runs a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture. 4.5 With regard to claims of torture or maltreatment in the recent past and the existence of independent evidence to support those claims, the State party points out that States parties to the Convention have a duty to consider any such claims with a view to assessing the risk that the complainant concerned would be subjected to torture if he or she is sent back to his or her country of origin. 16 The State party points out that the complainant claims to have been subjected to torture in various prisons during his detention between 7 or 10 December 2005 and mid-February 2006 but that, notwithstanding the fact that the Federal Office for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court have described his claims of arrest and detention as implausible, he has not provided any evidence of the maltreatment he claims to have suffered. Furthermore, although the medical certificate dated 14 March 2015 indicates that the complainant suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), it does not indicate any specific cause. In its judgment of 3 September 2014, the Federal Administrative Court did not dispute the existence of PTSD but emphasized that its causes were not those claimed by the complainant. The Federal Administrative Court thus concurred with the findings of the Federal Office for Migration, according to which the complainant began to suffer from PTSD only after his asylum proceedings had come to an end. 4.6 With regard to the political activity of the complainant in his country of origin, the State party notes the complainant’s claims that he had been politically active in Iran since 2000, that he was a supporter of the KDP and had volunteered to participate in freeing 10 Kurdish students, and that, because of his involvement in that effort, he was arrested, imprisoned and tortured in December 2005. These claims have been duly considered by the Swiss asylum authorities, which have found them to be implausible. 4.7 With regard to the political activity of the complainant in Switzerland, the State party submits that the cases that have come before the Federal Administrative Court indicate that the Iranian secret service may keep track of opposition political activities abroad, but that it focuses its attention primarily on persons having a particular profile, whose actions fall outside the scope of collective protest and who occupy positions or carry out activities that represent a serious and real threat to the Iranian regime. The Federal Administrative Court is thus of the view that it is the position held in an opposition organization and the impact of activities that put a person at risk, not membership, or involvement in standard political activities, such as attending demonstrations, staffing a stand or distributing political material. 17 In the case at hand, in its judgment of 28 January 2014, the Federal Administrative Court also emphasized that the Iranian authorities were aware of the fact that many asylum seekers become involved in political activity in exile only once their application for asylum has been denied, which casts a great deal of doubt on the authenticity of their involvement. The authorities are quite capable of distinguishing political activities that reflect a serious personal conviction from activities that people engage in primarily for the purpose of obtaining a residence permit. 14 15 16 17 GE.18-12643 Ibid., para. 10.5, and J.U.A. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/21/D/100/1997), paras. 6.3 and 6.5. See general comment No. 1, para. 6. See general comment No. 1, para. 8 (b). See, for example, the judgments of the Federal Administrative Court of 21 January 2008 (D4902/2007) and 9 July 2009 (D-3357/2006, para. 7.4.3), available at: https://www.bvger.ch/bvger/fr/home/jurisprudence/entscheiddatenbank-bvger.html. 5