CAT/C/50/D/439/2010 is a personal, present and serious danger of being subjected to torture in the event of a return to the country of origin. The existence of such a danger must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. The allegations must demonstrate that the danger is serious. 4.9 With reference to paragraphs 8 (b) and 8 (e) of general comment No. 1, the State party notes that the complainant makes no allegations of having been subjected to illtreatment in the Islamic Republic of Iran and says that he was not politically active there. Regarding his brother’s supposed political activities, the State party notes that no proof has been adduced. The State party adds that in its decision of 19 January 2006, the Federal Office for Migration stated that it was unlikely that the complainant’s brother would not have been apprehended by the authorities while living at his parents’ home, where the security forces had reportedly sought to capture him on numerous occasions. In such circumstances, it did not make sense that only the complainant would flee the country, and not his parents or his brother. 4.10 The State party then notes that both the Federal Office for Migration and the Swiss Asylum Appeals Commission deemed that the complainant’s allegations were unfounded concerning problems encountered prior to departure owing to his ethnic background. In its decision of 26 February 2010, the Federal Office for Migration emphasized that the news reports and press articles produced by the complainant in support of his second asylum application contained no new elements to show that the entire Arab community in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the complainant in particular, were persecuted by the Iranian authorities. 4.11 The State party goes on to note that the complainant also alleged that he was in danger of torture in the Islamic Republic of Iran because he took part in a demonstration in front of the Iranian embassy in Bern, as proven by two photographs. The State party points out in this connection that the Federal Office for Migration noted that the complainant had not begun to be politically active in Switzerland until well after his arrival, while he had never been politically active in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Furthermore, the publication on the Internet of one photograph of a crowd of people, along with hundreds of other such photographs, made it impossible for the Iranian authorities to positively identify each individual’s face. The State party points out that the complainant produced neither evidence nor specific indications to support the allegation that his participation in the demonstration in question would make him vulnerable to persecution. 4.12 The State party observes that the Federal Office for Migration also emphasized that, in light of the large number of Iranian citizens living in other countries, when the Iranian authorities are made aware of the political activities of their citizens overseas they cannot maintain surveillance over and monitor each person. Furthermore, they are aware that many Iranian migrants, having left their country above all for economic reasons, try to obtain a European residence permit by carrying out all kinds of activities that are critical of the Iranian regime. The Iranian authorities only identify such individuals if the nature of their activities constitutes a threat to the established political system (Federal Office for Migration, decision of 26 February 2010). 4.13 In this context, in respect of the complainant, the Federal Office for Migration noted that activities such as participation in non-violent demonstrations are not sufficient to establish that a specific danger exists in the event of a return to the Islamic Republic of Iran. The complainant has not held any high-profile political posts in the organizations mentioned, he has no record of political activity in the Islamic Republic of Iran and has not actively shown any interest in political involvement since his arrival in Switzerland. The State party points out that the Federal Office for Migration also considered that the complainant’s behaviour in Switzerland was not likely to bring about serious prejudice from the Iranian authorities, especially since there was no indication that the authorities had GE.13-45608 7