CCPR/C/114/D/2389/2014 there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists. Therefore, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including the general human rights situation in the author’s country of origin. 23 7.4 In the present case, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the refugee appeals board did take into account all relevant background information, combined with the author’s specific circumstances, and that the author failed to establish that there were substantial grounds for believing that he would be at risk of being subject to persecution or asylum-relevant abuse if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. In this connection, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the fact that the author was born in the AlTash refugee camp and later lived in the Barika refugee Camp only put him at risk of becoming the object of “general attention” of the Iranian authorities if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is not enough to substantiate a real risk of being subject to torture or ill-treatment. The Committee further notes the State party’s argument that the author failed to render probable his claim that his father had been actively involved in politics in the Islamic Republic of Iran. It also notes that the State party recognized the author’s membership of the Kurdistan Freedom Party, but considered that he had not been “politically active” because he had only been a member for a few months before his departure from Iraq, and his motivation to join the party was not political, and that he would therefore not be exposed to a risk of torture of ill-treatment if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. 7.5 The Committee further notes the author’s claim that the refugee appeals board did not give sufficient weight to his membership of the Kurdistan Freedom Party and to his participation in political activities; and that it did not take into account some of the statements contained in several sources quoted in the reports used by the State party’s immigration authorities, according to which refugees involved in political activities of the Kurdish political groups active in the Kurdish region in Iraq, including those who lived in the Al-Tash and Barika camps, may be at risk of persecution if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. 7.6 In this connection, the Committee notes that, according to publicly available information, including the reports referred to by the State party,14 as well as documents elaborated by immigration authorities from different countries and civil society organizations,24 Kurds who can demonstrate that they are known or suspected by the Iranian authorities of being members or supporters of Kurdish political groups could be at real risk of persecution. It also notes that failed asylum seekers may be at risk of persecution in the Islamic Republic of Iran. This information has not been refuted by the State party. In the present case, the Committee considers that the author’s membership of the Kurdistan Freedom Party, together with his previous participation in activities of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan and Komala, do indeed present a risk that he will be considered or suspected by the Iranian authorities of being a member or supporter of Kurdish political groups and that, as such, he would be at risk of treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. 23 24 12 See X v. Denmark (note 13 above), para. 9.2. See Border Agency of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Optional Guidance Note on Iran, October 2012, p. 35, available at www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/311906/Iran_operational_guid ance_2012.pdf. The Swiss Refugee Council describes the Iranian authorities’ practice of dealing with returned asylum seekers as arbitrary and unpredictable. See www.ecoi.net/file_upload/1930_1418737084_q18731-iran.pdf.