CAT/C/25/D/149/1999 page 10 Submissions by counsel 7.2. In her submission of 1 September 2000, counsel confirms previous information given regarding: (a) the nature of sighe or mutah marriages and the fact that witnesses are not necessary, nor registration before a judge if the partners themselves are capable of conducting the ceremony correctly; (b) the activities of Bonyad-e Shahid, affirming that martyrs’ widows are presented, in listings and photo albums, for temporary marriages to its employees and directors. Counsel supports the information given with letters from, inter alia, the Association of Iranian Political Prisoners in Exile (AIPP), the Support Committee for Women in Iran and Professor Said Mahmoodi, Professor of International Law at the University of Stockholm. 7.3. With regard to the alleged death sentence against the author, counsel submits that despite attempts by AIPP, it has not been possible to find any evidence that the author’s Christian lover had been imprisoned and that they both have been sentenced to death by stoning for adultery. AIPP, as well as other sources, maintain that such information is not possible to get if the prison, the court or the case numbers is not known. 7.4. Counsel submits letters and information given by experts in Islamic law confirming that a sighe wife is bound by the rules regarding adultery and that she is prohibited from having a sexual relationship with any man other than her sighe husband. Adultery with a Christian man bears the sanction of stoning to death. Counsel further submits that the law in theory requires either four righteous witnesses or a confession to the sexual act for stoning to be ordered, but that the author’s sighe husband, being a powerful man in society, would not have difficulties finding persons willing to testify. According to international human rights organizations, the eyewitness condition is rarely respected and stoning for adultery is still frequently practised in Iran, despite recent reforms in the country. 7.5. Reference and further clarifications were made with regard to telephone calls received by the author’s sister-in-law (see para. 2.8). The author’s previous lawyer had told Swedish authorities that the sister-in-law in Sweden had been contacted by Hojatolleslam Rahimian who told her that the author had been found guilty. Counsel has since been in contact with the sister-in-law directly and states that the correct version of events was that the sister-in-law, shortly after the author’s arrival in Sweden, was contacted by a man in rage who did not give his name but wanted to know the author’s whereabouts in Sweden. The man was aggressive and knew all the details of the author’s past and said that she had no right to leave Iran. The sister-in-law further states that she never attempted to verify the existence of a court judgement when she visited Iran. 7.6. With reference to the Committee’s request for additional information, counsel states that the author’s older son, born in 1980, tried to seek asylum in Sweden from Denmark in March 2000. In accordance with the Dublin Convention, after a short interview, he was sent back to Denmark where he is still waiting to be interrogated by Danish immigration authorities. Since his case had not yet been examined by the Danish authorities, counsel requested Amnesty International to interview him. 7.7. The records of the interview confirm statements made by the author regarding her sighe marriage and of her being called to the Bonyad-e Shahid office several times a week.