CAT/C/36/D/256/2004 Page 8 wanted by the Iranian authorities, the State party points out that this claim, like the claim on his political activities, was not brought up at the beginning of the asylum proceedings. At the beginning of the proceedings, he pointed to the risk of ill-treatment allegedly emanating from his former father-in-law and the private individuals taking orders from him. For the State party, it is not clear whether the complainant continues to invoke this ground as a basis for this communication. If so, the State party submits that this claim falls outside the scope of article 3, as it relates to fear of torture or il l-treatment by a non-governmental entity without the acquiescence of the Government. 4.13 To explain the inconsistencies in his story, the complainant appears to submit that the whole of the national asylum proceedings has been defective. The State party recalls that only the interpretation during the Migration Board’s second interview with the complainant has been established as flawed, and the complainant has had an opportunity to rectify any faults that could be found in this recording. The claims that there have been further deficiencies in the handling of the case have not been substantiated. Complainant’s comments 5.1 On 15 May 2005, the complainant commented on the State party’s submission. He states that throughout asylum process, he described his personal background, his previous political activities, and how he helped his sister and brother-in-law to escape from Iran. He submitted that the real reason the authorities detained him was to keep him imprisoned pending the results of the investigation into why he had visited the apartment in Shiraz. Further on in his submission, he states that the reasons he did not mention his political involvement, was due to several factors: he had just escaped from Iran; he was in a foreign country, the interpreter was Persian and he didn’t know whether he could be trusted; the interpreter took several telephone calls during the interview and was uninterested in what the complainant had to say; and he was told by the SPI that he should not comment on his politic al involvement without permission. 5.2 As to the State party’s point that the interpretation during the first interview was adequate, the complainant submits that the interpretation during this interview was not reviewed, so it is not clear whether it was in fact adequate. As to the flaws in the interpretation during the second interview, the complainant argues that the fact that the authorities did not receive a correct understanding of the reason for his asylum request and other circumstances of the case, referred to in his asylum application, affected the final outcome of the asylum process. Once it became obvious that the interpretation was inadequate, his request that the case be returned to the Migration Board should have been accepted. The argument that the complainant had the opportunity to correct errors from the second interview during the third interview is incorrect, as the faults only became obvious after the third interview itself. The questions posed during the third interview were apparently based on the incorrect opinion that the Migration Board had received during the second interview. 5.3 The complainant admits that he was given an opportunity to comment on the minutes of the second and third interview, but that upon pointing out his objections to his lawyer he was told that such corrections were not necessary, as he would be granted asylum regardless of what was noted in the minutes. In addition, he was told during the final interview that she had