CAT/C/59/D/691/2015 2.5 The complainant applied for asylum on 11 December 2013. On 27 June 2014, the Swedish Migration Board rejected her application. It considered that her story lacked credibility and that she did not demonstrate that she would face a well-founded risk of honour-related violence upon her return to the Islamic Republic of Iran, either by her family or her former husband’s family. The Board did not question her membership of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan, but considered that she did not provide a reliable account of the persecution she would face if she was returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. 2.6 On an unspecified date, the complainant appealed the Board’s decision. On 14 October 2014, the Migration Court of Appeal rejected her appeal, considering that she had provided conflicting information regarding her relationship with her former husband, thus failing to show that she was exposed to a level of violence that would merit a residence permit. Furthermore, it considered that one of the letters she had submitted to prove her membership of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan was of “low quality”. The Court also considered that she had not proved that she risked being harmed by the Iranian authorities, her family or her former husband’s family. On an unspecified date, she appealed that decision before the Migration High Court of Appeal. The Court denied her a “review permit” (leave to appeal) on 18 December 2014. The expulsion order therefore became executory. She submits that she has exhausted all available domestic remedies. 2.7 On 9 February 2015, the complainant sought interim measures before the European Court of Human Rights. On 10 February 2015, that Court, through the acting President, sitting in a single judge formation, decided not to prevent her expulsion. It declared the application inadmissible as, in the light of the material in its possession and insofar as the matters complained of were within its competence, the Court found that the admissibility criteria set out in articles 34 and 35 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights) had not been met. The complaint 3.1 The complainant claims that her deportation to the Islamic Republic of Iran would constitute a violation of her rights under article 3 of the Convention. She claims that there is a substantial risk that she will be arrested and tortured upon return because of her divorce and her political affiliation. In particular, she submits that she fears she will be ill-treated by her former husband’s family because he accused her of infidelity and of living with another man in Sweden. Indeed, she alleges that her former husband’s family has declared that the family honour has been disrespected and that she must be punished, and that her former husband has intimate pictures of her, which may be considered as evidence to accuse her of “promiscuous living” and prostitution. She also submits that she has fears about her own family, as they have declared that, when she returns to the Islamic Republic of Iran, they intend to punish her and expel her from the family in order to restore their honour. She also fears the Iranian authorities, because her former husband comes from a very influential and powerful family. His father is an imam and has good contacts with the authorities, and his testimony will therefore have more value than her own. A guilty verdict is therefore highly likely if the complainant is arrested and charged in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The complainant recalls that adultery is punishable under the Islamic Penal Code, 6 and that the penalty is whipping, stoning or even death. Honour killings and public punishment take place daily in the Kurdish areas in the Islamic Republic of Iran. 7 She submits that people who commit honour crimes in the Islamic Republic of Iran are not punished. 6 7 The complainant refers to arts. 63 and 102 of the Islamic Penal Code. No further information is provided in that regard. 3