CAT/C/53/D/473/2011 2.5 In Switzerland, the Khademis have continued their political activities against the regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran. They are active members of the Swiss section of the KDPI and have organized several demonstrations. They also regularly participate in protests throughout Switzerland and in Europe. 2.6 On 17 November 2010, the Federal Office for Migration (BFM) rejected the asylum applications of the Khademi family and ordered their expulsion to the Islamic Republic of Iran. On 20 December 2010, they appealed the decision before the Federal Administrative Tribunal, which, on 30 June 2011, upheld the decision of BFM. The Tribunal argued that it was not plausible that the ETELAAT only arrested Mr. Khademi five years after his return to Marivan, especially since the ETELAAT was allegedly aware of his activities with the KDPI. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that it was not credible that Mr. Khademi was identified in one day from footage taken of a demonstration which, according to him, was “huge.” Conflicting statements regarding the manner in which he was identified also led to the Tribunal’s conclusion that his claims were not credible. Regarding the statements made by Shahin Qadery, the second complainant, the Tribunal found that it was implausible that she and her sons joined Mr. Khademi in Mehriz, a few days after he had fled because doing so would have put the latter’s life at risk, as their house in Yazd was being monitored by the ETELAAT and they would have been followed. 2.7 The Tribunal further found that the documents submitted by Mr. Khademi to support his claims could not be considered as pertinent evidence because (1) the copies of the court files could have been falsified and the original copies of the verdict against him could have been procured; (2) a letter from KDPI and a tribal elder confirming Mr. Khademi’s political activities, a witness report and a letter from an Iranian lawyer, which explained that original case files could not be obtained, were written as a favour to him and were therefore unreliable; (3) the audio files of the interview on Kurdish radio could have been manipulated; and (4) the medical certificate did not demonstrate an obvious link between Mr. Khademi’s post-traumatic stress disorder, bodily scars and bone fracture in his hand, and the ill-treatment he purportedly suffered in the Islamic Republic of Iran. In addition, the Tribunal took into account the fact that no reports concerning the death penalty conviction of Mr. Khademi were available — Kurdish organizations normally publish such reports — for it to draw a conclusion. It also considered that the allegations of the Khademi family concerning events in Iraq were false as the family was in Greece between 2003 and 2005, and that Ramyar Khademi, the third complainant, did not mentioned that they had been detained for two days during his first asylum interview. Finally, the Tribunal ruled that the complainants’ political activities in Switzerland could not have come to the attention of the Iranian authorities, which only identified activists in exile who had leading roles in dissident movements. 2.8 The complainants maintain that the Swiss authorities have mistakenly concluded that they will not run the risk of persecution should they be expelled to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Mr. Khademi argues that the Federal Administrative Tribunal failed to invite the Swiss Embassy in Tehran to investigate further the authenticity of the court documents submitted or the existence of an arrest warrant against him, prior to its finding that those documents were not pertinent evidence of his claims. He observes that that omission resulted in the Tribunal’s other erroneous findings that letters from the KDPI, the tribal leader, a fellow inmate and an Iranian lawyer explaining the inability to obtain original court documents were not credible. Furthermore, the complainants contend that the Swiss authorities reversed the burden of proof against them. In particular, the medical certificate was not found to sufficiently demonstrate the link between Mr. Khademi’s injuries and the ill-treatment suffered without further investigation on the part of the Swiss authorities. The complainants also note that the Swiss authorities found that no record of Mr. Khademi’s death penalty conviction existed without considering that the conviction was passed 20 years ago, when the use of Internet was limited. Moreover, the complainants argue that the 4