CAT/C/30/D/190/2001 page 5 3.5 The complainant, referring to a report of Amnesty International of 30 July 1997, notes that homosexual activities are a criminal offence under the Iranian Penal Code. He points out that the mere declaration of four witnesses may lead to punishment as well as the opinion of a judge based on his own knowledge. The report further says that a person suspected of “committing” homosexual activities risks arrest, torture (lashes) or ill-treatment. 3.6 As to sources that confirm the existence of acts of torture in Iran, the complainant refers to the report of the United Nations Special Representative of the Commission on Human Rights on Iran of 21 September 1999, according to which “[p]ress accounts suggest that corporal punishment is prevalent. In January 1999, an Iranian newspaper reported that two 15-year-old boys had been sentenced to a flogging for ‘offending public democracy’ by dressing up as girls and wearing make-up. They explained to the Court that they did this to ‘extract money from rich young men’. In June an Iranian newspaper reported that a young man in Mashad had been given 20 lashes for ‘wounding public moral sentiments’ by plucking his eyebrows and wearing eyeshadow. In March an Iranian newspaper reported that six persons had been sentenced in Mashad to 18 months in jail and 228 lashes for goading passers-by to dance in the street”. 3.7 The complainant underlines that the decisions of the State party to deny him refugee status were based on alleged discrepancies and, in particular, on the fact that K.H. did not mention during his own asylum hearings that the complainant had been detained in Iran. The complainant argues that K.H. only mentioned his homosexual relationship with him and explained that his partner also had problems but did not give any more details. The complainant also refers to the jurisprudence of the Committee according to which complete accuracy can seldom be expected from victims of torture. 3.9 Finally, the complainant draws attention to the fact that the complainant was not admitted in the State party because he was convicted of a serious crime. The complainant that is not compatible with the absolute character of article 3 of the Convention. Furthermore, the complainant argues that he is not a threat to the Dutch society because his crime was committed out of passion, as confirmed in the judgement of 22 June 1995. State party’s observations on the admissibility and merits 4.1 In a submission dated 21 November 2000, the State party made its observations on the merits of the case as it did not propose any grounds for inadmissibility. 4.2 Referring to the jurisprudence of the Committee, the State party recalls that in order to be personally at risk of being subjected to torture in the sense of article 3 of the Convention, there must not only be a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights in the country where the complainant is expelled but also specific grounds indicating that the complainant is personally at risk of being subjected to torture. It also reminds that the terms “substantial grounds” imply that torture is highly likely and that the individual must face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being tortured, as interpreted in the light of the Committee’s general comment No. 1 on the implementation of article 3. 4.3 Concerning the situation in Iran, the State party, referring to some Views of the Committee, argues that although the situation is disquieting it is not to a point that any person removed to Iran would be in danger of being subjected to torture. Moreover, the complainant’s