CCPR/C/119/D/2253/2013 statements he made during the asylum proceedings were implausible, incoherent and inconsistent. With regard to the hunger strike, the Board stated that the author had not sufficiently established the probability of any risk of persecution in the Islamic Republic of Iran, as he had not provided any information indicating that he had made any statements to the press or any other declaration in relation to such event that could have exposed him to a risk upon return. In addition, he had not provided any evidence corroborating his allegation that the families of the hunger strikers had been subjected to harassment by the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence. The complaint 3.1 The author alleges that his deportation to the Islamic Republic of Iran will put him at risk of inhuman and degrading treatment, in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. He claims that the Iranian authorities are aware of his activities in Denmark against the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, since the information concerning such activities, including the hunger strike, are available on YouTube and Facebook. Should the Iranian authorities not already have knowledge of the author’s Facebook account, there is a high risk that they will get access to it if he is removed to the Islamic Republic of Iran. 8 In addition, it is well known that Iranian authorities film the demonstrations in front of their embassies and that they monitor the Internet. Therefore, he submits that, given his participation in several demonstrations in front of the Iranian embassy in Denmark, he would be at risk of ill-treatment or torture if deported to the Islamic Republic of Iran. 9 3.2 The author further claims that, as he does not have a valid passport,10 he would be exposed to further risk of a violation of article 7 upon return to the Islamic Republic of Iran. He claims that Iranians who return without a passport or any valid travel document are arrested and brought to a special court located at the airport in Tehran. The court assesses the background of the individual, the date of their departure from the country, the reason for their illegal departure, and their connection with any organization or groups and any other circumstances.11 Considering that the procedure is applied to people who are deported to 8 9 10 11 4 The author refers to a report by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Home Office, “Iran: country of origin information (COI) report” (January 2013). The report cites the Wall Street Journal, which reported in 2009 that, according to former Iranian lawmakers and others with knowledge of the programme, the Islamic Republic of Iran had been conducting a campaign of harassing and intimidating members of its diaspora worldwide — not just prominent dissidents — who criticized the regime. According to the newspaper’s sources, “part of the effort involves tracking the Facebook, Twitter and YouTube activity of Iranians around the world, and identifying them at opposition protests abroad”. The newspaper further indicated that dozens of individuals in the United States of America and Europe who had criticized the Islamic Republic of Iran on Facebook or Twitter had said that their relatives in the Islamic Republic of Iran had been questioned or temporarily detained because of those postings. Some individuals interviewed for the article who had recently travelled to the Islamic Republic of Iran said they had been forced by police at the airport in Tehran to log in to their Facebook accounts. Several reported having their passports confiscated because of harsh criticism they had posted online about the way the Government had handled its controversial elections in June 2009. The author refers to Reporters without Borders, “Enemies of the Internet 2011 — Iran”, available at www.ecoi.net/local_link/156365/273147_de.html. According to the report, in January 2011, the authorities finished setting up the first Iranian cyberpolice to strengthen their control of the Internet. On 20 May 2010, an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander officially confirmed the creation of an Iranian “cyberarmy”, which has already cracked down on online networks deemed “destructive” and arrested hundreds of citizens. He also refers to the above-mentioned 2013 country of origin report by the United Kingdom Home Office, according to which a Times article dated 11 July 2009 reported that there had been protests outside the Iranian Embassy in London. The author of the article had made the following observation: “From the rooftop of the Iranian Embassy in London an unmanned video camera records the faces of the angry crowd gathered in Knightsbridge.” The author indicates that the Iranian embassy in Denmark, for many years, has not been willing to issue travel documents to Iranian citizens who are not leaving Denmark voluntarily. Therefore, he would not have a valid travel document were he to be removed to the Islamic Republic of Iran. The author refers to the above-mentioned country of origin information report of the United Kingdom Home Office report, p. 260.