CAT/C/52/D/481/2011 further states that upon his return to the Islamic Republic of Iran in August 2011, he was interrogated several times by the military police and that, out of fear, he disclosed the names of K.N. and his family and spoke of their political activities in the Communist party of the Islamic Republic of Iran and in IFIR. State party’s observations on the merits 4.1 On 27 April 2012, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the communication. The State party considers that the Federal Office for Migration and Federal Administrative Court decisions were well founded, and that the deportation of the complainants and the minor children to the Islamic Republic of Iran would not constitute a violation of the Convention by Switzerland. 4.2 The State party considers that, according to article 3 of the Convention, State parties are prohibited from expelling, returning or extraditing a person to another State where there exist substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be subjected to torture. To determine the existence of such grounds, the competent authorities must take into account all relevant considerations, including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.11 Such a pattern is not in itself a sufficient basis for concluding that an individual might be subjected to torture upon his or her return to his or her country. To benefit from the protection under article 3, an applicant should show that he or she runs a “foreseeable, real and personal” risk of torture. 4.3 The State party considers that, although human rights conditions in the Islamic Republic of Iran are a cause for concern in several respects, the country is not affected by generalized violence, and that the complainants have not demonstrated that they incur a foreseeable, personal and real risk of being subjected to torture upon return there. The State party notes that the complainants do not allege that they have been subjected to torture or ill-treatment in the past. The State party considers that F.W. and the minor children do not claim separate grounds for asylum, and that F.W. has stated that she was never politically active and had never encountered problems with the Iranian authorities. The State party takes the view that K.N.’s allegations regarding the activities he performed for the Komala party in the Islamic Republic of Iran are not credible. The State party considers that K.N. was unable to adequately or correctly respond to detailed questions about the Komala party and its membership procedures, that he did not possess a Komala membership card, and that he inconsistently claimed during a hearing that he was both a member and not a member of Komala. The State party further considers that K.N. was unable to consistently and adequately describe the nature of the fundraising activities he performed for Komala, and could not convincingly explain why the Secret Service did not seek him at his workplace after finding that he was not at home. The State party also considers that the complainants have not established any link between K.N.’s alleged arrest in 1982 and his departure from the Islamic Republic of Iran in 2008. The State party further submits that, in the light of the Swiss authorities’ findings that the complainants were not being pursued by the Iranian authorities before their departure from the country, K.N. appears to have lived in the Islamic Republic of Iran from 1987 to 2008 without encountering any difficulties with the Iranian regime. Regarding the documentary evidence proffered by the complainants, the 11 6 The State party refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22 (Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-third Session, Supplement No. 44 (A/53/44 and Corr.1), annex IX), paras. 6 and 8, and the Committee’s jurisprudence in communications No. 94/1997, K.N. v. Switzerland, Views adopted on 19 May 1998, paras. 10.2 and 10.5, and No. 100/1997, J.U.A. v. Switzerland, Views adopted on 10 November 1998, paras. 6.3 and 6.5.