CAT/C/59/D/691/2015 3.2 The complainant indicates that the Iranian authorities are not aware of her membership of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan, as party members hide their militancy in order to avoid persecution. However, her husband or her husband’s family would reveal her membership to the authorities as revenge for having “dishonoured” them. She also indicates that once the authorities were aware that she was a member of the party, she would be arrested or at least interrogated, which means that she would face torture or sexual abuse, as that is common practice in the Islamic Republic of Iran. She maintains that, given that the Iranian authorities have extensive intelligence operations abroad, they may be aware of her militancy in the party, as she has openly attended party meetings in Sweden. 8 In that context, she refers to a report of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which states that Kurds who express themselves politically are likely to be arrested, imprisoned or tortured in the Islamic Republic of Iran. 9 According to a report of the Home Office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, persons who can show that they are members or supporters of the party are at risk of persecution and should be granted residence permits and international protection. 10 Furthermore, the complainant cites the Islamic Republic of Iran 2014 human rights report of the Department of State of the United States of America,11 which contains information on the human rights violations suffered by women in the Islamic Republic of Iran. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 25 September 2013, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility of the communication. It submits that, as the author has previously lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights, her complaint should be held inadmissible under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention. In that regard, the State party notes the complainant’s claims that her application was merely a request for interim measures regarding the decision ordering her expulsion, pursuant to rule 39 of the European Court’s rules of procedure. The State party also notes the complainant’s argument that, as the European Court of Human Rights did not take “the matter to trial”, it cannot be considered that the communication has been subject to judicial review by that Court. The State party therefore assumes that, according to the complainant, her application did not concern the same matter as the communication submitted to the Committee and that the European Court did not examine the substance of her application since it declared it inadmissible. 4.2 The State party recalls the Committee’s jurisprudence wherein it has consistently held that the “same matter”, within the meaning of article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, must be understood as relating to the same parties, the same facts and the same substantive rights. 12 In that connection, it notes that the present communication raises claims under article 3 of the Convention in relation to the alleged risk of torture to which the complainant would be subjected if removed to the Islamic Republic of Iran. It points out that from the letter of the European Court of Human Rights to the complainant dated 10 February 2015, it is clear that she had submitted an application to the Court, including a request that the Court prevent her expulsion to the Islamic Republic of Iran. 4.3 The State party indicates that, according to the Court’s directions concerning requests for interim measures, complainants must state the reasons on which their particular fears are based, the nature of the alleged risks and the European Convention provisions 8 9 10 11 12 4 The complainant attaches pictures of her with “very well known” representatives of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan taken at meetings held in Sweden. No further information is provided on the report. No further information is provided on the report. See www.state.gov/documents/organization/236810.pdf. The State party quotes communication No. 642/2014, M.T. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 7 August 2015, and the Committee’s decisions on the communications cited therein.