CAT/C/53/D/473/2011 Swiss authorities did not address the matter of their illegal departure from the Islamic Republic of Iran, which would result in scrutiny by the Iranian authorities upon their return and which may expose them to further harm, should they be returned.2 Mr. Khademi further submits that the Swiss authorities did not directly dispute his membership in the KDPI as a peshmerga, which leaves him vulnerable to imprisonment and death upon return. 3 Mr. Khademi adds that reports show that the Iranian authorities are actively trying to identify protestors abroad, even if they are low-profile activists,4 as well as arresting, torturing and carrying out hundreds of death sentences against human rights activists within the Islamic Republic of Iran.5 The complaint 3. The complainants submit that, altogether, the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mr. Khademi’s political activities in the country, the family’s political activities in Switzerland and the fact that Mr. Khademi had been tortured previously puts the family at a real and personal risk of torture or other inhuman and degrading treatment should they be returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. The complainants maintain that their forcible return to the Islamic Republic of Iran would constitute a breach by Switzerland of its obligations under article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention. State party’s observations on the merits 4.1 On 3 February 2012, the State party submitted its observations on the merits. It recalls the facts of the case and notes the complainants’ argument before the Committee that they would be at risk of being subjected to torture or inhuman treatment if returned to their country of origin. 4.2 The State party notes that Ramyar Khademi, the third complainant, had indicated, in his first asylum interview on 10 September 2007, that he had left the Islamic Republic of Iran because of his father’s political activities. However, in a second asylum interview with the Swiss authorities and before the Committee, he claims that he had been arrested, detained for two days and interrogated. The State party reiterates that, based on his initial claim, the Swiss asylum authorities found on 17 November 2010 that Ramyar Khademi had no credible reason to fear persecution upon return to his country of origin. Furthermore, the State party submits that Shahin Qadery, the second complainant, did not provide valid reason for an asylum claim. The State party also contends that the new evidence provided by the complainants, that is, letters from the KDPI dated 9 February 2010 and 1 May 2011, do not call into question the decisions of the asylum authorities of the State party. 4.3 The State party further clarifies the asylum proceedings pursued by the complainants. It notes in particular that, on 17 November 2010, the Federal Office for Migration rejected the complainants’ applications for asylum, which were submitted on 27 August 2007 and 3 September 2007 — the latter on behalf of Ramyar Khademi, the third complainant —, because their allegations lacked credibility and nothing in their case 2 3 4 5 The complainants refer to European Court of Human Rights, R.C. v. Sweden, Application no. 41827/07, judgment of 9 March 2010, para. 53. The complainant refers to United Kingdom: Home Office, Operational Guidance Note – Iran, 15 March 2011, v6, paras. 3.12.9 ff. The complainant refers to BA (Demonstrators in Britain – risk on return) Iran v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, CG [2011] UKUT 36(IAC), United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), 1 February 2011. The complainant refers to Human Rights Watch, “World Report 2011 – Iran”, 24 January 2011; and International Federation for Human Rights, “Prosecutor says hundreds to be executed in Iranian capital Tehran”, 8 June 2011. 5