CAT/C/47/D/381/2009 Additional comments by the State party 6.1 On 10 February 2010, the State party, referring to the decision of the Federal Administrative Tribunal of 9 July 2009, mentioned by the complainant in his comments above, explained that the decision concerned an Iranian complainant who was accompanied by her two young children and had converted to Christianity before her departure from the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Tribunal had ruled that her allegations regarding the period prior to her departure were not plausible and that no grounds had emerged since she had fled the country to justify the granting of political asylum. Nevertheless, the Tribunal granted the complainant temporary admission, deeming it not to be in the best interests of the children, who had completed the greater part of their schooling in Switzerland, to return them to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Additional observations by the complainant 7.1 On 5 May 2010, the complainant informed the Committee that, on 27 April, the Federal Office for Migration had granted refugee status to his son Arash Faragollah, born on 19 September 1983. He had requested asylum independently of his parents and, in his latest application, of 4 February 2008, set out the risks to which he claimed to be exposed as a result of his political activities in the Democratic Association for Refugees. Arash Faragollah had devoted a great deal of time to collecting signatures for petitions, distributing Kanoun, the association’s magazine, and taking part in a radio project on behalf of the association in conjunction with radio LoRa. Having started as a technician for Stimme des Widerstands (Voice of Resistance), he later took over editorial responsibility for the programme. After assessing all the circumstances, the Federal Office for Migration found that the profile of the complainant’s son might attract the attention of the Iranian authorities and that he would therefore have reason to believe that he could face serious harm should he return to the Islamic Republic of Iran.17 7.2 Under these circumstances, the complainant alleges that the risk he runs of being subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is greater still, given that he is the father of a recognized refugee in Switzerland and that he has the same dissident profile. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claim contained in a complaint, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.2 Noting that there is no impediment to the admissibility of the complaint, the Committee proceeds to its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The issue before the Committee is whether the removal of the complainant to the Islamic Republic of Iran would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return a person to another State where there 17 8 This information was transmitted to the State party on 23 June 2010. GE.12-40167