CAT/C/65/D/691/2015 Republic of Iran had been threatened,18 but that he intended to file for divorce as soon as the Migration Agency had delivered its decision. 7.5 In her submission to the Migration Agency on 26 November 2013, the complainant stated, inter alia, that her marriage was genuine, but that she had been subjected to abuse by her husband and his sister ever since her arrival in Sweden. She claimed that her husband yelled at her and she feared that he would become physically violent, so she had moved to a women’s shelter and reported her husband to the police. 19 She also claimed that her husband and his family had threatened her and her family, and that her husband belonged to a powerful family in the Islamic Republic of Iran with well-established contacts among local authorities. She claimed that if she was returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran, she would be arrested and subjected to torture and probably raped. 7.6 The State party notes that, in her application for asylum submitted on 11 December 2013, the complainant stated that her life was in danger because of her husband and his family. She claimed that her brothers-in-law had visited her father in the Islamic Republic of Iran and had threatened him. They had also threatened to kill her for reasons of honour if she were to return to the Islamic Republic of Iran. During the first asylum interview, on 31 March 2014, the complainant stated that her family was politically engaged and very wellknown in the Islamic Republic of Iran. One of her brothers had worked for the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan and had lost his life. When the complainant was asked whether it was correct that she had not had any problems with the authorities in the Islamic Republic of Iran, as she had previously stated, she confirmed that she had not had any problems with them. She added, however, that she was afraid that her husband would reveal to them that her brother was involved with the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan. Another interview was conducted on 28 April 2014. Both interviews were conducted in the presence of counsel and interpreters. 7.7 On 27 June 2014, the Migration Agency decided to expel the complainant. The Migration Court rejected her appeal on 14 October 2014. By its decision of 15 January 2015, the Migration Agency extended the complainant’s time limit for a voluntary return until 12 February 2015. According to her own statement, the complainant intended to return to the Islamic Republic of Iran, but she wanted to avoid a decision banning her from returning to Sweden, therefore she needed more time to prepare for her return. On 13 February 2015, the Migration Agency decided to ban the complainant from returning to Sweden for a period of one year, and her expulsion was transferred to the police as she was deemed to have absconded. 7.8 The State party submits that, in accordance with the Aliens Act, an expulsion order that has not been issued by a court expires four years after it becomes final and nonappealable. In the complainant’s case, the four-year period expires on 18 December 2018; the State party therefore requests the Committee to consider the present case well before that date in order to leave enough time to arrange for the complainant’s expulsion, should the Committee’s examination lead to a finding that the complaint is inadmissible or that it reveals no violation of the Convention. 7.9 With regard to the admissibility of the complaint, the State party submits that the communication is manifestly unfounded and thus inadmissible pursuant to article 22 (2) of the Convention and rule 113 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. 7.10 With regard to the merits of the complaint, the State party notes that, when determining whether the forced return of the complainant to the Islamic Republic of Iran would constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention, the following considerations are relevant: (a) the general human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran; and, in particular, (b) the personal, foreseeable and real risk of the complainant being subjected to torture following her return. According to the State party, although there are concerns that may legitimately be expressed with respect to the current human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran and the situation of women in the country, these concerns are not in themselves sufficient to establish that an expulsion of the complainant would entail a 18 19 No further details provided. No further details provided. 7