CAT/C/50/D/439/2010 taken measures against him owing to his activities in the State party. The Office further noted that there was a contradiction between the claim that the complainant was wanted by the Iranian authorities, while according to the complainant’s own allegations, they knew that he was in Switzerland at the same time. The Office thus concluded that the complainant did not have a political profile that would expose him to danger in the Islamic Republic of Iran. 4.14 The State party adds that it is impossible to deduce merely from the complainant’s participation in one or even more than one demonstration in Switzerland that he would be perceived as a potential threat to the Iranian regime and that he would thus be in danger of torture upon his return to the country. In any event, the complainant had failed to demonstrate that the Iranian authorities were aware of his participation, and had also failed to show to what extent they considered him to pose a threat because of it. He had also failed to demonstrate that he personally was wanted in the country, or even that his brother was wanted there. 4.15 In the light of the foregoing considerations the State party concludes that the complainant does not run the risk of being tortured if he is returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 The complainant presented his comments on the observations of the State party on 27 June 2011. Regarding the observations relating to his brother, who is politically active in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the complainant explained that he had only recently come to live in his parents’ home. Previously, he had lived in another town and visited his parents only occasionally. The complainant also stated to the asylum authorities that his brother had been seen once by security officers fleeing his parents’ house by the roof; they had opened fire, but he had managed to escape. The complainant’s brother sometimes returned for a week, then left for 10 days, and continued thus, without having a fixed address.9 5.2 The complainant adds that he chose to flee because he could no longer bear to be constantly harassed by the security services. He feared threats to his physical integrity and to his life. If his brother had not fled the country, that was his personal choice, no doubt related to his involvement in politics; it is not a matter of logic. 5.3 The complainant holds no proof of persecution. The Iranian authorities never officially summoned him, nor did they issue a wanted notice or an arrest warrant for him, or any other document to show that his family was under surveillance. As for his brother’s political activities, he pointed out that the regime’s repression is so severe that opposition parties must act with the utmost caution; they remain underground and very few documents can attest to the fact they exist. For example, no party membership card is issued. The Swiss authorities have recognized that the political opposition in the country was built upon mistrust and secrecy (JAAC 1999 I No. 63.5, p. 45; JJCRA 1998/4). 5.4 Regarding the arguments about his political activities in Switzerland, the complainant reiterates the points made in his initial communication and adds that the State party is unaware which of those Iranians who took part in public political demonstrations have or have not been identified by the Iranian authorities. In considering the danger of torture in the event of return, it is not enough to rely on mere probabilities or conjecture that 9 8 On 9 June 2005 the complainant stated during a hearing as part of the asylum application procedure that his clan, the B. clan, was the largest in Khuzestan Province, and his brother could thus stay anywhere. He also explained that many members of the family, including many young people, had been killed, while others had disappeared. GE.13-45608