CAT/C/53/D/473/2011 not demonstrate that they would run a personal risk of being subjected to torture upon their return. 4.7 With regard to the allegations of torture or ill-treatment sustained in the recent past by Mr. Khademi and the existence of independent evidence thereof, the State party underlines that State parties to the Convention have an obligation to take those allegations into consideration in order to assess the risk of the complainant being subjected to torture if returned to his country of origin. 9 The State party recalls that the Federal Administrative Tribunal did not find that the medical certificate presented by Mr. Khademi demonstrated a causal link between the his injuries and the allegations of ill-treatment he suffered while in detention in Marivan from 1991 to 1993. Furthermore, the Swiss authorities found that a letter, dated 24 May 2011, which was presented by the complainant as evidence and which was allegedly provided by a refugee in Sweden who had been a fellow inmate of Mr. Khademi, was not credible, as its content appeared to have been influenced by the complainant himself. Events recounted in the letter, in particular a meeting between Mr. Khademi and a judge, also did not correspond with Mr. Khademi’s own recounts in the asylum interviews. Lastly, the State party points out that the complainant’s argument that the Swiss authorities reversed the burden of proof against him is unfounded, since the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, cited by the latter, does not apply in his context, and that the Swiss authorities had, as per their obligation, thoroughly examined the medical certificate dated 4 September 2010. The Swiss authorities consequently found that no causal link between the complainant’s injuries and the alleged ill-treatment suffered in the Islamic Republic of Iran could be established. Hence, the State party argues that the treatment sustained by the complainants, as claimed before the domestic authorities and the Committee, would not amount to a violation of the Convention. 4.8 With regard to the political activities pursued by Mr. Khademi, the State party notes that both before the domestic authorities and the Committee, Mr. Khademi contended that he was an active member of the KDPI Peshmerga in the 1980s; that KDPI activists are brutally oppressed in the Islamic Republic of Iran; that he had been arrested for his political activities; and that he risked detention once more if returned to his country of origin. These allegations were duly examined by the Swiss asylum authorities, which established that they lacked credibility. Similarly, Mr. Khademi’s allegations relating to ETELAAT’s search for him in Iran and Iraq were not found to be credible. Moreover, the State party notes that Mr. Khademi did not demonstrate in a credible manner how his illegal departure from the Islamic Republic of Iran would expose him to danger in case of return. It was further noted that Mr. Khademi has not been politically active in his country of origin since 1980 and did not submit credible evidence confirming his political activities or how the Iranian authorities would have known about them. 4.9 With regard to the political activities pursued by the complainants in Switzerland, the State party notes that, Mr. Khademi, Shahin Qadery and Ramyar Khademi, the first, second and third complainants, stated to the Committee that they were active members of the KDPI in Switzerland and participated regularly in protests, and that the Iranian authorities were actively identifying activists against the regime abroad, including “lowprofile” activists or those who participated in protests for opportunistic reasons. To support the latter claim, the complainants relied on a ruling in a British case. The State party underlines that the complainants only declared their political activities in Switzerland following the negative decision taken by the Swiss asylum authorities on 17 November 2010. Furthermore, the State party notes that, on 30 June 2011, in the light of its jurisprudence and new information from the complainants, the Federal Administrative 9 Committee against Torture, general comment No. 1 (1997), para. 8 (b). 7