CAT/C/52/D/481/2011 State party takes the view that the statements by Mr. Azizpour appear to be “writings of convenience”, and that the summons is not probative evidence of a risk incurred, since K.N. brought many copies of blank summons forms with him to Switzerland and stated at his hearing before the Federal Office for Migration that anything could be purchased in the Islamic Republic of Iran. 4.4 The State party submits that S.N.’s allegations relating to the computer-related activities he performed in the Islamic Republic of Iran to assist his father’s involvement in Komala are contradictory and unconvincing because he was unable, during asylum proceedings, to identify or describe any of the passwords, telephone numbers, e-mails or political texts that he alleged that he had recorded on the computer for his father, and because it was not credible that he would save passwords on a computer when passwords were intended not to be recorded. The State party takes note of S.N.’s explanation at his Federal Office hearing that he did not have a personal interest in these activities but was simply executing them at his father’s request. The State party further considers that S.N. is not at risk of ill-treatment in the Islamic Republic of Iran since he stated that he was not politically active in the country, was unable to provide any useful information about Komala or relevant details about the visit of the Secret Service to the family’s home, and that he did not know why his father claimed that he was aware of all of his father’s Komala activities and contacts. 4.5 The State party considers that, although the Iranian Secret Service has been known to conduct surveillance of expatriate dissidents, it is implausible that the Service has taken note of the complainants’ activities in Switzerland. The State party is of the view that the Iranian authorities do not target all members of opposition parties, but rather focus on highprofile individuals who, for example, participate in activities that could represent a concrete danger to the Iranian regime. The State party submits that K.N. and S.N. do not present such a profile; the political activities they allege that they have participated in are typical activities for exiled Iranians, and would not identify the complainants as potentially dangerous agitators even if the Iranian authorities came to know of them. The State party considers that the Iranian authorities are unlikely to attempt to apply facial recognition techniques to the unlabelled photographs purporting to depict the complainants participating in demonstrations, and that it is impossible for the authorities to monitor and identify all political opponents abroad. The State party further considers that the authorities are likely aware that many Iranians living abroad attempt to portray themselves as dissidents in order to obtain asylum. The State party also considers that the complainants did not allege that they had participated in political activities against Iran in Switzerland until the Federal Administrative Court denied their request for review, and that this sudden and recent political engagement is superficial and does not appear to stem from profound conviction.12 Complainants’ comments on the State party’s submission 5.1 By letter dated 5 July 2012, the complainants submitted their comments on the observations of the State party. As a preliminary matter, they maintain that the State party has not provided any new information or any response to the materials provided by the complainants to the Committee. 5.2 The complainants contest the State party’s observation that there is no situation of generalized violence in the Islamic Republic of Iran, since there is a high risk of being 12 The State party also submits that the complainants should be able to easily reintegrate into Iranian society, since they have a large network of relatives and friends in Mahabad, where they lived until their departure, and since K.N. is well educated. 7