The complaint grounds for asylum and the reasons which prompted him to request asylum.” 3. The author is afraid that he will be questioned about his political activities when he returns to Iran. He adds that torture during interrogations is common in Iran. Furthermore, he is afraid that he will be charged with the Molotov cocktail attack of 1982 and that he will consequently be sentenced to a long term of imprisonment or even death. He adds that the mere act of requesting asylum in another country is considered an offence in Iran. 4.4 The State party also contests Mrs. Aemei’s status as author of the communication. 4.5 In a letter of 1 March 1996, counsel refutes the State party’s argument contesting Mrs. Aemei’s status as author of the communication on the grounds that she has not claimed any ground for asylum peculiar to herself. Counsel further states that if Mrs. Aemei were to be sent back to Iran, she would be liable to the same risks as her husband, or even greater risks, and that the State party itself has acknowledged that the applicant’s subsequent conduct in Switzerland does not constitute a ground for asylum under Swiss legislation. He also maintains that the applicant had no reason to mention his political activities in Switzerland during the asylum procedures and had always been questioned about his past and about facts which could have supported his application for asylum. Procedural issues 4.1 On 22 November 1995, the Committee transmitted the communication to the State party for its observations. 4.2 In its observations of 22 January 1996, the State party contests the admissibility of the communication, stating that since the author had not, in the course of the ordinary asylum procedure before the national bodies, mentioned his fear that his political activities in Switzerland would render him liable to torture if he returned to Iran, he had not exhausted domestic remedies. The State party explains that this point should have been made during the procedure to establish the right of asylum. Since the point was not mentioned until the request for review, the authorities were not able to consider it, as the author’s activities within the APHO did not constitute a new development in the light of the criteria established by the jurisprudence of the Federal Court. 4.6 Counsel points out that in any case the nonreturn obligation is an absolute obligation. Although the argument of the author’s political activities in Switzerland was submitted late and hence, for procedural reasons, could not be taken into account in relation to the asylum decision, counsel is of the opinion that the rejection of the asylum application does not mean that the person can now be sent back to his country. He points out that Swiss legislation offers alternatives such as the possibility of a residence permit for humanitarian reasons (Asylum Act, art. 17, para. 2) or temporary admission (Asylum Act, art. 18, para. 1). Counsel also draws attention to the fact that physical integrity must not be endangered for procedural reasons. The risk that an asylum-seeker will misuse the procedure should not be overestimated, especially as few asylumseekers can point to events as serious as those referred to by the authors in the case at hand. 4.3 In its observations, the State party nevertheless submits “that is a subjective ground under article 8 (a) of the Asylum Act, which in this connection provides that ‘asylum shall not be granted to a foreigner when ... only his conduct following his departure would justify his being considered a refugee within the meaning of article 3’. According to case law and doctrine, the concept of ‘subjective grounds occurring after flight from the country’ covers situations in which the threat of persecution could not have been the cause of the departure of the asylum-seeker but results from his subsequent conduct. Although such grounds are not relevant to the granting of asylum under the exclusion clause of the above-mentioned article 8 (a), an applicant who invokes subjective grounds may nevertheless remain in Switzerland, by virtue of the non-return principle, if the conditions of article 45 of the Asylum Act are met. The allegation of ‘subjective grounds’, like the grounds which prompted the applicant to leave his country, must nevertheless satisfy the requirements of asylum procedure, among which are those relating to the obligation to cooperate. In accordance with article 12 (b) of the Asylum Act, the applicant is required to cooperate in the verification of the facts; to this end, he has in particular to explain, at his hearing, his 4.7 After considering the observations of the parties, the Committee decided, at its sixteenth session, to suspend consideration of the communication pending the result of the author’s requests for reconsideration in the light of his political activities in Switzerland. The Committee also requests information from the State party on domestic remedies and asked the applicant to provide additional information concerning his asylum applications in Switzerland on the basis of his political activities in Switzerland. The Committee also asked the State party not to expel the author and his family while their communication is under consideration. Further observations by counsel 5.1 In a letter of 5 August 1996, counsel explains that the author did not mention his activities within 22