CAT/C/25/D/149/1999 page 6 4.12. Second, the State party maintains that it seems unlikely that the author, solely out of curiosity, would want to have photographs of tortured people in her possession. It seems even more unlikely that she would hand over such photographs to someone she had known only for a few months. Further, the State party notes that although the author claims that the authorities in Iran are in possession of a film showing her last meeting with her friend, no additional information has been provided by the author on this issue. 4.13. A third reason for doubting the author’s credibility is that the author has not submitted any judgement or other evidence to support her claim that she has been sentenced for adultery by a Revolutionary Court. In addition, the author has not given any explanation as to why her sister-in-law was not able to obtain a copy of the Revolutionary Court’s judgement when she visited Iran. Further, the State party notes that according to information available to it, the Revolutionary Courts in Iran have jurisdiction over political and religious crimes, but not over crimes such as adultery. Hudud crimes, i.e. crimes against God, including adultery, are dealt with by ordinary courts. 4.14. The State party further draws to the attention of the Committee that the author left Tehran without any problems only a few days after the incident which allegedly led to her detention, which would indicate that she was of no interest to the Iranian authorities at the moment of her departure. In addition, the author has claimed that she handed over her passport to her brother-in-law upon arrival in Sweden. However, the State party notes that her passport number is indicated on her asylum application which she submitted six days later. The explanation for this given by the author’s counsel during the national asylum procedure, i.e. that the number might have been available from an earlier visit in Sweden by the author in 1996, is unlikely. There is nothing in the author’s file that indicates that documents concerning her earlier visit to Sweden were available during the asylum application procedure. 4.15. The State party also draws the Committee’s attention to the fact that the author has not cited any medical report in support of her statement that she was severely beaten by Ayatollah Rahimian only a few days before her arrival in Sweden. In addition, according to information received by the State party, the head of the Bonyad-e Shahid was, until April 1999, Hojatolleslam Mohammad Rahimian, but he does not hold the title of ayatollah. 4.16. Finally, the State party adds that when the author’s sister-in-law applied for asylum in Sweden in 1987, she stated that her brother, the author’s late husband, had died in a flying accident in 1981 caused by a technical fault. Ten years later, the author’s brother-in-law and his family also applied for asylum and claimed that the author’s husband had been killed for being critical of the regime and that he and his family would therefore be in danger of persecution if returned to Iran. The brother-in-law and his family were returned to Iran in November 1999 and the State party submits that it has not received any information indicating that they have been mistreated. 4.17. On the basis of the above, the State party maintains that the author’s credibility can be questioned, that she has not presented any evidence in support of her claim and that she should therefore not be given the benefit of the doubt. In conclusion, the State party considers that the enforcement of the expulsion order to Iran would, under the present circumstances, not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention.