CAT/C/52/D/481/2011 3.4 The complainants refute the credibility and substantiation determinations made by the Federal Office for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court. They maintain that they provided documentation confirming K.N.’s active membership in IFIR and the Komala party, and his political activities in exile, as well as evidence of widespread torture of Komala party members and extensive surveillance of internet dissidence by the Iranian authorities. Specifically, the complainants maintain that they provided with their second asylum application a statement dated 20 January 2009 from Salah Mazoji, a central committee member of the Komala party who had met K.N. personally.8 Mr. Mazoji states the following: that K.N. was in prison from 20 March 1982 to 25 February 1987; that after his release from prison, K.N. was forbidden from going to university and working, that he was denied all government benefits, and was controlled and observed all the time by security forces; that K.N. has been an active member of Komala since joining the party in 1989; that on 18 August 2008, Mr. Mazoji asked K.N. to join him in Suleimanye in Iraq in order to plan future Komala activities in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and that K.N. subsequently did so. The complainants further report that K.N. was wanted upon return to the Islamic Republic of Iran by the security forces, who wanted to arrest him and S.N.; that K.N. and his son went into hiding for that reason and had to leave the Islamic Republic of Iran with their entire family because their safety was at risk; and that K.N. and his son risked being executed by the Iranian regime because of K.N.’s activities with Komala. The complainants also state that after K.N.’s release from prison, he was given an identification document with which he had to report to the authorities twice a month and was also required to pledge a parcel of real property as security to the Iranian authorities. The complainants argue that these measures indicate that K.N. was under the scrutiny of the Iranian authorities even from the time of his arrest, and that the Federal Office for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court failed to take these facts into account and to understand the pervasive extent of Iranian surveillance mechanisms. The complainants maintain that the Federal Office and the Court erroneously disregarded or discounted the statements provided by Mr. Mazoji, Mr. Azizpour and IFIR. The complainants state that the head of IFIR provided an affidavit stating that he believed K.N. could successfully promote the needs of the Iranian refugee community in Switzerland, and that K.N. should succeed him as the leader of IFIR. The complainants also contest the Court’s determination that the summons they provided (issued by the Islamic Revolution Court and addressed to K.N. and S.N. (attachment 10, thereto attachments 17 and 18; attachment 12) was a forgery. The complainants further argue that the Court should have taken into account credible reports documenting human rights abuses in the Islamic Republic of Iran: even though those reports did not relate to a personal risk incurred by K.N., the complainants consider that they should have weighed in their favour.9 3.5 In a further submission, dated 28 November 2011, the complainants provided additional documentation in order to demonstrate the “imminent risk of torture” they claim to face if deported to the Islamic Republic of Iran. They provide an undated signed statement from Mohammed Amin Pari, Jafar Ghaderi and Loghman Ekthiari,10 who allege that they were detained by the Iranian military police for 48 hours, beginning on 17 August 2011, on account of their contact with K.N. They state that after long and painful torture and disrespectful accusations by the police, they were forced to sign a statement providing that the military police can interrogate them in the future at any time. The complainants also provide a signed letter dated 19 November 2011 from Meharngiz Khagaz-Kanini, stating that he had sought asylum in Switzerland and met K.N. there. Mr. Khagaz-Kanini 8 9 10 The complainants provide a copy of Mr. Mazoji’s English-language statement with their complaint. The complainants cite European Court of Human Rights decision R.C. v. Sweden, Application no. 41827/07, 9 March 2010. The complaint and statements do not specify how these persons are acquainted with the complainants. 5