CAT/C/53/D/473/2011 Tribunal thoroughly examined whether they could be returned to their country of origin. It found that since the revision of the Iranian Penal Code in 1996, political activities conducted abroad by an organization against the regime were punishable and that, according to relevant reports, individuals had been arrested, accused and condemned for criticizing the Islamic Republic of Iran on the Internet. It also determined that the Iranian authorities surveyed the political activities of dissidents abroad and systematically registered their names. However, only dissidents of a particular profile were found to be targeted, that is, those who occupied lead positions in exile, posed a serious and concrete threat to the Government and who were in a position to place decisive pressure on the diaspora or the Iranian people, with the aim of toppling the Iranian regime. The State party argues that the complainants do not match that profile, as their activities, including obtaining permits for a booth and manning it, participating in protests and writing articles online accompanied by pictures, can be compared to the political activities of many Iranian dissidents in exile and do not attract the attention of the Iranian authorities. Furthermore, the ruling by the British court, on which the complainants relied, which found that “lowprofile” dissidents abroad were targeted by the Iranian regime, cannot be interpreted as meaning that all “low-profile” dissidents would face ill-treatment if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran, as that does not reflect the reality. In addition, the State party submits that, since Mr. Khademi’s allegations pertaining to his political activities in the Islamic Republic of Iran were not judged to be credible by the Swiss asylum authorities, the same credibility concerns arise vis-à-vis his allegation that he was identified as an activist in Iraq. 4.10 With regard to the credibility and the factual consistency of the complainants’ claims, the State party recalls that the Swiss asylum authorities considered it implausible that the Iranian authorities would arrest Mr. Khademi for his involvement with the KDPI five years after he had allegedly stopped those political activities. The domestic authorities also found that Mr. Khademi’s explanation regarding his identification by the ETELAAT during the first asylum proceedings was vague and illogical, as he must have assumed that it was safe to return to Marivan. In addition, following the negative asylum decision on 17 November 2010, Mr. Khademi indicated in the second asylum proceedings that he was identified to the ETELAAT by a masked man who had been called up as a witness during the his detention and who denounced him to the authorities. Considering the potential significance of such a revelation, the domestic authorities considered this additional information to have been invented by the complainant and concluded that there were no substantial grounds to believe that the complainants would be subjected to torture if returned. 4.11 In respect of Mr. Khademi’s allegations that he returned to Marivan in 2001 to visit his family and by chance he found himself in the midst of a “huge” protest in the town centre, that he was identified through video footage within a day by the Iranian security forces and was being sought following their identification of him that same day, the State party notes that the asylum authorities found this recount to be implausible, considering the short time frame in which it all supposedly occurred and the complainant’s description of the protest as “huge.” Furthermore, during the first asylum proceedings, Mr. Khademi made statements which led the asylum authorities to question the veracity of his allegations regarding those incidents. For instance, Mr. Khademi stated that he visited his family in Marivan on the occasion of every Nowruz, even during his detention, as he was given seven days leave, as well as during his exile in Yazd. The Swiss asylum authorities therefore found it surprising that the ETELAAT would have suspected him on only that occasion of Nowruz of coming to Marivan with the aim of participating in a protest. Furthermore, Mr. Khademi provided conflicting statements in respect of his knowledge of ETELAAT’s presence at the protest. In an initial interview, he claimed to have been unaware of ETELAAT agents taking photos, whereas in a later interview he claimed to have known 8