CAT/C/53/D/473/2011 during the first asylum interview, before he could go into any details, is contrary to the reading of the interview, which indicates that he was permitted to speak freely. 4.15 In respect of the complaint itself to the Committee, the State party submits that the complainants only partially present the arguments of the competent Swiss authorities and that the arguments presented have not been sufficiently discussed or counter-argued. Rather, the complainants merely claim that the allegations which were not considered by the competent Swiss authorities to be credible are, in reality, true. In addition, the State party notes that the complainants did not adequately demonstrate in their complaint that the findings of the Swiss authorities were ill-founded with regard to the lack of pertinence of the evidence submitted in proving the authenticity of their allegations. It further notes that the complainants did not explain in a plausible manner why they could not produce relevant evidence to support the allegation that Mr. Khademi was sentenced to death by the Revolutionary Tribunal. The complainants’ argument that the verdict cannot be found online because it occurred during the 1990s, when there was little Internet or modern forms of communication, is also not plausible, nor is their claim that they were unable to obtain copies of the judgement. Moreover, the State party underlines that the Swiss authorities did not find the documents submitted by the complainants regarding the Facebook campaign or the letter from a Swedish witness relating to that campaign to be compelling evidence. Lastly, the Swiss authorities did not find it necessary to deliberate on the issue of Mr. Khademi’s alleged prosecution based on the alleged activities of his father, as no pertinent documentary evidence was produced, nor was there an explanation as to why such evidence was not provided. 4.16 The State party submits that, in the light of the foregoing, there are no substantial grounds to fear that the complainants would be concretely and personally exposed to torture if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Their allegations and the evidence provided do not lead to the conclusion that their return would expose them to a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture. The State party, therefore, invites the Committee to find that the return of the complainants to the Islamic Republic of Iran would not constitute a violation of the international obligations of Switzerland under article 3 of the Convention. Complainants’ comments on State party’s observations 5.1 On 23 April 2012, the complainants commented on the State party’s observations. The complainants maintain that, as the State party itself submits, the human rights situation in Iran is worrying in several respects. The complainants argue that there clearly exists a real and imminent risk that they would be subjected to torture or other inhuman and degrading treatment if returned. They further argue that the State party’s finding that there is no causal link between the ill-treatment of Mr. Khademi during his detention and his post-traumatic stress disorder and several fractures is unfounded; Mr. Khademi’s health was not carefully examined by Swiss authorities. 10 If such an examination had been conducted, it would have concluded that it was highly probable that torture and illtreatment were the cause of Mr. Khademi’s fractures and post-traumatic stress disorder, as there are no other reasonable causes for those conditions. 5.2 The complainants challenge the State party’s argument that Mr. Khademi was not politically active in his country of origin. They reiterate that he joined the KDPI Peshmerga at the age of 18 or 20 years. As a former politically active Kurd, he was suspected of spying for the KDPI and was seen as participating in a mass demonstration on the occasion of Nowruz in March 2001. Regardless of how high profile his political activities were, the 10 10 The complainants refer to European Court of Human Rights, R.C. v. Sweden, Application No. 41827/07, judgment of 9 March 2010, para. 53.