CAT/C/47/D/381/2009 representative, a position of responsibility, of the Democratic Association for Refugees and that his name and address have been published.9 He plans and coordinates many of the association’s demonstrations and meetings, and his activities extend beyond mere participation in such events and the publication of articles. He reiterates that he is involved in the association’s strategic planning, working closely with the association’s director. For those reasons, the complainant reiterates that it is highly likely that he has drawn the attention of the Iranian authorities to himself and that his political activities will be seen by them not only as defamatory toward the present regime — itself a crime in Iran — but also as a threat to the country’s internal security. He adds that the Tribunal has recently decided that a person who performs the duties of cantonal representative of the Democratic Association for Refugees runs a real risk of persecution in the event of return to the Islamic Republic of Iran, and that the same reasoning should apply in his case. The complaint 3. The complainant claims that his deportation from Switzerland to the Islamic Republic of Iran, as well as that of his wife and son, would be in violation of article 3 of the Convention, as there are substantial grounds for believing that they would be in danger of being subjected to torture if sent back. State party’s observations on the merits 4.1 On 22 October 2009, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the communication. It states that the complainant has failed to establish that he would face a personal, real and foreseeable risk of torture upon his return to the Islamic Republic of Iran. While noting the worrisome human rights situation in Iran and referring to general comment No. 1 of the Committee,10 the State party recalls that this situation is not in itself a sufficient basis for concluding that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned. It contends that he has failed to demonstrate that he faces a foreseeable, personal and real risk of torture if returned to Iran. 4.2 According to the State party, the complainant declared, during the domestic judicial proceedings, that he had been arrested in 2003 near the University of Teheran on suspicion of having taken part in the university revolt of Kuye Daneshgah. The arrest, however, apparently did not prompt his departure from the Islamic Republic of Iran. The complainant does not claim to have been tortured and has focused his communication before the Committee on his second asylum application, which is based exclusively on his political activities since his departure from the Islamic Republic of Iran. 4.3 With regard to the complainant’s political activities in Switzerland, the State party notes that in many decisions concerning the removal of unsuccessful asylum-seekers to the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Federal Administrative Tribunal has found that the Iranian secret service may carry out surveillance of political activities in opposition to the regime undertaken abroad, but only when those involved in such activities fit a certain profile, take action that falls outside the usual scope of the mass opposition movement, and hold office or carry out activities of such a nature that they represent a serious and real threat to the Government concerned.11 The State party adds, making reference to various sources, that 9 10 11 GE.12-40167 Kanoun, the monthly publication of the Democratic Association for Refugees (No. 4, April 2009, p. 8). General comment No. 1, A/53/44, annex IX (see HRI/GEN/1/Rev.9, vol. II). The State party also refers to communications No. 94/1997, K.N. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 19 May 1998, and No. 100/1997, J.U.A. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 10 November 1998. The State party refers to the decision of the Federal Administrative Tribunal of 26 August 2008, para. 5