The State party further submits “that the author of the present communication has produced no document with evidentiary value, either in the course of the domestic proceedings or before the Committee against Torture, relating to his political activities for the Mojahedin, or any medical certificate attesting to his having been subjected to treatment prohibited by the Convention”. In the opinion of the State party, “at this stage already, the author’s communication appears to be manifestly ill-founded as regards the existence of a personal, serious and concrete danger of treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention, to which the author claims he would be exposed if he were sent back to his country”. argument cannot be sufficient in respect of article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention since the prohibition laid down in this provision is dependent on the proven existence of substantial grounds for persecution”. The State party maintains that it has no information to substantiate the specific danger of persecution as a result of filing an application for asylum in Switzerland. 6.10 The State party considers that the author’s statements do not enable the conclusion to be drawn that there are substantial and proven grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being tortured if he returned to Iran. Finally, it observes that “the European Commission of Human Rights has deemed that the general situation in Iran was not characterized by mass violations of human rights [application N° 21649/93, DR, 75/282]” and that, “the author himself does not claim that there is a consistent pattern of human rights violations in Iran”. 6.6 The Swiss authorities further consider that some of the author’s statements do not correspond to the facts and, because they show a lack of familiarity with established practice with regard to illegal political activities, describe them as “totally unrealistic”. In particular, the author’s statement that he was sentenced to only two years’ imprisonment because of the judge’s respect for his origins contradicts information gathered by the Swiss authorities in the course of asylum proceedings concerning Mojahedin. Counsel’s comments on State party’s observations 7.1 In a letter of 30 October 1996, counsel reiterates the points made in his initial communication. As regards the State party’s argument that the author’s statements about his political activity within the People’s Mojahedin did not appear to be sufficiently substantiated, counsel submits that it is normal for a sympathizer not to be as well informed about an organization as one of its members. He explains that the author was motivated by hostility towards the regime rather than the Mojahedin’s political ideas. Counsel notes that the author is not in a position to produce documents in support of his allegations concerning the events that took place in Iran, and states that after his release the author was no longer active within the Mojahedin. 6.7 Finally, the State party notes that the author’s wife did not corroborate his statements about his political activities. The State party therefore concludes that the author’s fear appears to be manifestly ill-founded. 6.8 With regard to the author’s activities in Switzerland, the State party is not able to confirm the author’s allegation that his identity is very probably known to the Iranian authorities because of the events that occurred in May 1991 and June 1992. In particular, the Bern police are not aware of the participation of the brother of President Rafsanjani in the May 1991 incident. As regards the Iranian consul’s visit to the APHO stand, the Swiss Government has stated that, “a member of the city of Bern police force recalls that there was a skirmish between Iranians in June 1992, but does not know whether it involved members of the Iranian consulate and APHO activists, because the incident was already over by the time the police arrived, when only APHO members were present. In the light of this information, the Swiss Government considers it at least doubtful whether the events in question occurred so they cannot automatically be considered to constitute a decisive ground in respect of article 3 of the Convention”. 7.2 Counsel acknowledges that the security measures taken by the author’s group in Iran were not sufficient, but rejects the conclusion that the author’s statements are unrealistic. He also maintains that merely distributing leaflets can lead to life imprisonment and explains that the fact that the author was only sentenced to two years’ imprisonment in April 1983 was due, inter alia, to the author’s origin as a descendant of Muhammad. Concerning the alleged contradictions, counsel affirms that the author’s statements are not contradictory on essential points, and that the discrepancies with the information provided by his wife are not relevant. Mrs. Aemei has lived in great fear for years, which would explain the fact that she wanted to know as little as possible about her husband’s political activities. In any case, she first heard about them in April 1983. 6.9 As to the author’s allegation that the filing of an application for asylum is in itself a relevant ground within the meaning of article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the State party observes that the author adduces no evidence in support of this argument. The State party further notes, “such an 7.3 Counsel is of the opinion that the author’s statements about his political activities are true, which is also proved by the fact that the Swiss Government admits in its observations that there was 24