The State party’s additional observations 6.1By note dated 14 April 2003 the State party provided the Committee with additional observations. It states that there is no evidence that the complainant faces a personal risk of torture if returned to Iran, and that his arguments are based on mere speculation and suspicion. It reiterates that, based on the evidence, the complainant did not play a leading role in the Fedayeen-eKhalg, and that he did not experience significant difficulties in Iran after 1985. It recalls that the complainant’s proceedings before the Dutch immigration and judicial authorities have lasted seven years, and that the courts twice upheld the lawfulness of the relevant authority’s actions. 6.2The State party refers to the Committee’s case law in communication No. 204/2002, H.K.H. v. Sweden, 28 November 2002, where the Committee noted that, in order for a violation of article 3 of the Convention to occur, “additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk”. 6.3In relation to the authenticity of the Iranian documents, reviewed by an expert on the complainant’s behalf, the State party notes that the documents cited by the expert bore different dates to those tendered by the complainant and that the name of the person to whom the documents referred had been deleted. It also submits that it took into account the general situation in Iran in considering what personal risk might be run by the author upon his return to Iran. Issues before the Committee 7.1Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being considered under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee notes that the State party has not raised any objections to the admissibility of the communication. The Committee finds therefore that no obstacles to the admissibility of the communication exist and proceeds with the consideration of the merits of the communication. 7.2The Committee must determine whether the forced return of the complainant to Iran would violate the State party’s obligations under article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention not to expel or return (refouler) an individual to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subject to torture. In reaching its conclusion, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, including the existence in the relevant State of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the aim is to establish whether the individual concerned would be at personal risk of torture in the country to which he or she would be returned. In accordance with the Committee’s jurisprudence, the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violation of human rights in a country does not of itself constitute sufficient grounds for determining whether the person in question would be at risk of being subject to torture upon return to that country. Nor does the absence of such a situation mean that a person cannot be considered in danger of being subjected to torture. 7.3The Committee recalls its general comment on article 3, which states that the Committee is to assess whether there are “substantial grounds for believing that the author would be in danger of torture” if returned, and that the risk of torture “must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion”. The risk need not be “highly probable”, but it must be “personal and present”.c In this regard, in previous decisions, the Committee has determined that the risk of torture must be “foreseeable, real and personal”.d 7.4In assessing the risk of torture in the present case, the Committee notes that the complainant claims to have been tortured and imprisoned previously by the Iranian authorities, because of his involvement with the Fedayeen Khalg-Iran. This is not contested by the State party. However, the alleged acts of torture occurred in 1983, some 20 years ago. The Committee notes that, in accordance with its general comment on article 3, information which is considered pertinent to risk of torture includes whether the complainant has been tortured in the past, and if so, whether this was in the recent past.e This cannot be said to be the case in the author’s complaint. 7.5The Committee’s general comment also directs the inquiry at whether the author of the communication has engaged in any political or other activity within or outside the State concerned which appear to make him or her “particularly vulnerable” to the risk of torture.f In the current case, the complainant contends that he signed a form upon his release, to the effect that he would not engage in further political activities, and that he was harassed by the authorities after his release. He claims that, despite this, he did continue to engage in political activities in Iran, that he had good reason to flee Iran in 1994, and that he has continued his political activities in the Netherlands, of which the Iranian authorities might be aware. The complainant further alleges that he submitted to the authorities Iranian documents, issued by the Revolutionary Prosecutor’s Office, which attest to the Iranian authorities’ interest in him and the dangers confronting him in Iran. 7.6The Committee notes that the complainant’s arguments, and his evidence to support them, have all been considered by the State party’s courts. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that it is not an appellate, quasi-judicial or administrative body. Consistent with its general comment, whilst the Committee has the power of free assessment of the facts arising in the circumstances of each case, it must give considerable weight to findings of fact made by the organs of the State party. In this case, the Committee cannot determine that the State party’s review of the complainant’s case was deficient in this respect. On the basis of the above, the Committee considers that the complainant has not substantiated that he would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture upon his return to Iran. 8.The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, concludes that the removal of the complainant to Iran would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. Notes