CAT/C/50/D/439/2010 brother was an activist or the exact nature of his brother’s activities, given that such parties operated in secret in the Islamic Republic of Iran. 2.11 Presenting a final point, the complainant believes that he also runs the risk of being tortured in the Islamic Republic of Iran simply because he left the country illegally. 2.12 On the basis of the foregoing considerations, the complainant believes that he should not be returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran, where he would run the risk of being tortured. The complaint 3. The complainant states that if he is expelled to the Islamic Republic of Iran he will certainly be arrested and tortured by the security forces because of his ethnic background, his membership in the B. clan and the fact that he is the relative of a politically active person who is wanted by the authorities (his brother) and is also the head of his family. His forced return would constitute a violation by the State party of his rights under article 3 of the Convention. State party’s observation on admissibility and on the merits 4.1 On 19 May 2010 the State party presented its observations on the admissibility and the merits of the communication. It noted that the complainant is an Iranian of Arab origin and that he has affirmed both to the authorities responsible for asylum and to the Committee that he left the Islamic Republic of Iran because his home had been searched by the Iranian authorities, who were seeking his brother, a member of the Arab political party fighting for the rights of the local Arab population. The complainant would supposedly thus be arrested if he was returned to the country, all the more so as generally the families of political opponents, and Arabs in particular, are victims of repression, discrimination and ill-treatment. Furthermore, in 2006 he took part in a demonstration in front of the Iranian embassy in Bern, where photographs were taken. The fact that he left the Islamic Republic of Iran illegally would also reportedly put him in danger. Lastly, the complainant has also stated that in the light of his health problems, it would be unreasonable to force him to return. 4.2 The State party points out that the complainant entered Switzerland on 15 December 2005 and applied for asylum. On 19 January 2006 his application was denied by the Federal Office for Migration, which also called for the complainant’s expulsion. On 2 February 2006 the Swiss Asylum Appeals Commission (whose remit has since been assigned to the Federal Administrative Court) confirmed the ruling. On 23 December 2009 the complainant filed a new asylum application, which was denied by the Federal Office for Migration on 26 February 2010. The complainant did not appeal against this ruling. Nonetheless, on 1 June 2010 he filed a request for reconsideration of his case; that request was rejected by the Federal Office for Migration on 11 June 2010. The Federal Administrative Court upheld that decision by a judgement handed down on 3 September 2010. 4.3 The State party notes that the complainant claims in his communication that in its judgement of 3 September 2010, the Federal Administrative Court did not assess his allegation that he would be tortured if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran, restricting its review solely to the medical aspects invoked in the case. The State party notes that all the arguments put forward concerning the risk of persecution in the Islamic Republic of Iran were assessed in detail by the competent authorities during the three procedures brought before the Federal Office for Migration. The current communication does not contain any new elements that might change the decisions taken by the Office on 19 January 2006 and 26 February and 11 June 2010, nor the decisions of the higher authority issued on 2 February 2006 and 3 September 2010 upholding the Office’s conclusions. GE.13-45608 5