CAT/C/25/D/149/1999 page 7 Counsel’s comments 5.1. In her submissions dated 4 February and 6 March 2000, counsel disputes the arguments of the State party regarding the failure of the author to submit written evidence. Counsel states that the author has provided the only written evidence she could possibly obtain, i.e. her identity papers and documentation showing that she is the widow of a martyr. Counsel states that the ayatollah conducted the sighe or mutah wedding himself with no witnesses or written contract. As to her failure to provide the immigration authorities with a written court verdict, counsel submits that the author only has second-hand information about the verdict, as it was passed after her departure from Iran. She cannot, therefore, submit a written verdict. Counsel further disputes that the author’s sister-in-law should have been able to obtain a copy of the verdict while visiting Iran. She further states that the author’s sister-in-law long ago ended all contacts with the author because she strongly resents the fact that the author has had a relationship with any man after the death of her husband. 5.2. Counsel acknowledges that crimes such as adultery are handled by ordinary courts. However, she draws the attention of the Committee to the fact that the jurisdictional rules are not as strict in Iran as for example in the State party and that the prosecuting judge can choose the court. In addition, for a martyr’s widow to ride alone with a Christian man in his car would probably fall under the heading of “un-islamic behaviour” and as such come under the jurisdiction of the Revolutionary Court. Even if this were not the case, counsel reminds the Committee that the author has only been informed that she has been sentenced to death by stoning by a court. Not being a lawyer, and in view of what she was told during her interrogation by the Zeinab sisters, the author assumes that the sentence was handed down by the Revolutionary Court and this assumption should not be taken as a reason for questioning the general veracity of her claim. 5.3. Counsel states that the author has given credible explanations for not being able or not wishing to provide the Swedish authorities with certain addresses and telephone numbers. Firstly, she had promised for the sake of security not to give her lover’s telephone number to anyone and does not wish to break her promise even at the request of the immigration authorities. The Christian man always contacted the author on her mobile phone which he had given her for that purpose alone. The author left the mobile phone in Iran when she departed and as she never called her number herself or gave it to anyone, she cannot remember it. Further, counsel states that the address which is indicated on the author’s visa application used to be her home address, but the author has repeatedly explained that new tenants are now living there and that she does not want to subject them to any difficulties caused by inquiries from the Swedish authorities. Finally, counsel stresses that the author has given detailed information about the neighbourhood, Aghdasiye, where her lover lived and that she has repeatedly underlined that she never knew the exact address since she always went to her secret meetings first by taxi to Meydon-e-Nobonyad where she was picked up by a car that brought her to the Christian man’s home. Finally, all the author ever knew about the Christian man’s relatives was that he had one sister and one brother living in United Kingdom and a son from a previous marriage living in Canada. She never met them and never asked their names. 5.4. Counsel underlines that the fact that the Swedish authorities do not find the author’s explanations credible is a result of speculation based on the supposition that all people behave