CAT/C/50/D/439/2010
the burden of proof, the Committee also recalls that it is normally for the complainant to
present an arguable case, and the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond
mere theory or suspicion.
7.5
Additionally, the Committee recalls that, in accordance with its general comment
No. 1, considerable weight will be given to the State party’s findings of fact, but the
Committee is not bound by such findings and instead has the power of free assessment of
the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case.
7.6
In the present case, the complainant asserts that there is a risk that he will be tortured
if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran because he is from the persecuted Arab minority
and from the B. clan, several members of which have already reportedly been killed, with
others having gone missing; because of the political activities of his brother, who is wanted
by the authorities; and because he took part in a demonstration in front of the Iranian
embassy in Bern.
7.7
The Committee notes first of all that the overall human rights situation in the Islamic
Republic of Iran can be considered to be problematic in many respects. Nonetheless, it
notes that the complainant has never been tortured there, either because of his ethnicity or
for any other reason. Even if he claims that his family has been persecuted by the
authorities seeking his brother, who is supposedly politically active in the local
underground Arab opposition, the complainant produces no evidence in support of this
claim. As for his general complaint regarding the persecution of the Arab minority, in
particular in the region of Khuzestan, the Committee considers that such a complaint in no
case would justify concluding that there is a real, personal and serious danger for the
complainant.
7.8
The Committee notes that the complainant was not politically active in his country
of origin and thus is not at risk owing to such activities in the event of his return. As for his
political activities in Switzerland, the Committee notes that the complainant took part, once,
in a demonstration with an Arab group in front of the Iranian embassy in Bern, and that a
group photograph showing the complainant was subsequently placed on an Internet page,
along with hundreds of other photographs. The Committee notes the argument of the State
party, which the complainant did not refute, according to which the demonstration in
question involved several dozen participants. The Committee considers that, even if the
Iranian authorities were aware of it, the complainant’s participation on one occasion in a
mass demonstration, in the absence of other elements, does not make it possible to believe
that the complainant would run the risk of being subjected to torture or otherwise
persecuted in the event of his return to the Islamic Republic of Iran.
7.9
As for the complainant’s explanation that, owing to secrecy, it is difficult for him to
produce evidence of his allegations or impossible for him to provide further details on the
name of the political party in which his brother is supposedly politically active or on his
brother’s precise activities, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence that it is normally for
the complainant to present an arguable case and that the risk of torture must be assessed on
grounds that go beyond mere theory and suspicion.11
8.
In view of all the foregoing considerations, and having taken into account all the
information made available to it, the Committee considers that the complainant has not
11
10
and 285/2006, A.A. et al. v. Switzerland, decision of 10 November 2008, para. 7.6.
See inter alia M.F. v. Sweden, communication No. 326/2007, decision of 14 November 2008,
paragraph 7.7; or Mehdi Zare v. Sweden, communication No. 256/2004, decision of 12 May 2006,
para. 9.5.
GE.13-45608