CAT/C/53/D/473/2011 Consideration of the merits 7.1 In accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, the Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties concerned. 7.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the removal of the complainants to the Islamic Republic of Iran would violate the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return (refouler) a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to the Islamic Republic of Iran. In assessing that risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the Committee recalls that the aim of such determination is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would return. 7.3 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22, in which it states that “the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. However, the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable” (para. 6), but it must be personal and present. In that regard, in previous decisions, the Committee determined that the risk of torture must be foreseeable, real and personal.11 The Committee recalls that under the terms of its general comment No. 1, it gives considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned, while at the same time it is not bound by such findings and instead has the power, provided for by article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, of free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case. 7.4 The Committee notes that the State party itself recognizes that the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran is concerning and that prominent political opponents of the regime are at risk of torture. The Committee further recalls its own findings regarding the extremely worrisome human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran, particularly for individuals of Kurdish ethnicity, since the elections held in the country in June 2009.12 The Committee also notes that the State party does not dispute that Mr. Khademi was active in the KDPI Peshmerga, a Kurdish dissident movement in the late 1980s, and that he was imprisoned from 1991 to 1993. The Committee further notes that the State party does not dispute that the complainants were granted refugee status in Iraq by UNHCR based on those very claims. 7.5 The Committee takes note of the State party’s submissions that the complainants’ political activities in Switzerland were “too low profile” to attract the attention of the Iranian authorities. The Committee, however, observes that since Mr. Khademi had been previously imprisoned for his political activities, it is likely that he is on the watch list of the Iranian authorities for further activities abroad. The Committee also takes note of the State party’s submission that the asylum authorities examined the medical certificate presented by Mr. Khademi, and found that no causal link between the complainant’s 11 12 12 See, inter alia, communications No. 258/2004, Dadar v. Canada, decision adopted on 23 November 2005; and No. 226/2003, T.A. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 6 May 2005. See communications No. 357/2008, Jahani v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 23 May 2011, para. 9.4, and No. 381/2009, Faragollah et al v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 21 November 2011, para. 9.4.