4.11 As to the second portion of claims under article 7 (concerning future violations of his rights in Iran in the case of a deportation), the State party accepts that it is under a limited obligation not to expose the author to violations of his rights under the Covenant by returning him to Iran.34 It submits, however, that this obligation does not extend to all rights in the Covenant, but is limited to only the most fundamental rights relating to the physical and mental integrity of the person.35 From the Committee’s jurisprudence, the State party understands that this obligation has only been considered in relation to the threat of execution (art. 6)36 and torture (art. 7) upon return, and accordingly it submits that this obligation is limited to these two rights under article 6 and article 7. In relation to article 7, the prohibition must plainly relate to the substance of that article, and can therefore only encompass the risk of torture and, possibly, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The State party considers that the Committee has itself stated that the prohibition under article 7 does not extend, for example, to due process guarantees under article 14.37 It adds that it is well established that the risk of a violation of article 7 must be real in the sense that the risk of a violation must be the necessary and foreseeable consequence of a person’s return.38 denial of access to employment, to the professions or education, and restriction of the freedoms traditionally guaranteed in a democratic society, such as speech, assembly, worship or freedom of movement.40 Factors such as discrimination experienced in employment, education and housing, difficulties in practising his religion and the deteriorating human rights situation in Iran at the time were considered in granting the author’s application. Persecution is, thus, a much broader concept than that encompassed by article 7 of the ICCPR, and refugee recognition should not lead the Committee to the conclusion that it is a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the author’s return to Iran that he would be subjected to article 7 violations. 4.14 Secondly, the State party contends that the reports of Dr. C. Rubinstein on the human rights situation in Iran,41 upon which the author relies, misrepresent the realities. The State party argues that the human rights situation in Iran has much improved in recent years following the election of a reformist president and government, and refers to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights statement in April 2000 welcoming the report by the Special Representative of the Commission on the improving human rights situation in Iran.42 There are indications that relations between the Iranian Government and the Assyrian Christians are improving substantially.43 4.12 Turning to the case at hand, the State party rejects the author’s contention that it is a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his return to Iran that he will be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment for three reasons. 4.15 The State party argues that it seems that official interference with Christian religious activities is limited to those Christian faiths that proselytize and Muslim individuals who abandon Islam to become Christians, asserting that Assyrian Christians do not actively engage in conversions and, in fact, tend to discourage Muslims from joining their faith. According to information from the State party’s Mission in Iran, this means that they are subject to far less scrutiny and harassment than members of other Christian and minority faiths 4.13 Firstly, the recognition of the author’s refugee status was based on many considerations other than the risk of an article 7 violation. The State party contends that the granting of refugee status was made on the basis that he might suffer “persecution” in the event of return. The State party submits that “persecution” may be understood as persistent harassment by, or with the knowledge of, authorities.39 The core meaning of “persecution” readily includes the deprivation of life or physical freedom, but also encompasses such harassment as 34 35 40 Goodwin-Gill, G.S. (1996), The refugee in international law (2nd ed.), Clarendon Paperbacks, Oxford. CCPR General Comment 20; 10/04/92, paragraph 9. Kindler v. Canada, op. cit., Cox v. Canada No. 539/1993; CCPR General Comment 20, 10/04/92. Op. cit. Ibid. E/CN.4/2000/35. The State party cites the 17 September 2000 visit of President Khatami to an Assyrian church, stating that he wished to work towards “resolving differences and working towards all Iranians, Muslims or non-Muslims, to live together hand in hand and to benefit from the joys of a decent honourable life” (IRNA, 17 September 2000), the recent praise of an Iranian Archbishop for Iranian officials for safeguarding religious freedoms for ethnic minorities (IRNA, 30 July 2000), and the fact that in 1998 President Khatami was guest of honour at the Assyrian Universal Alliance annual conference. ARJ v. Australia No. 692/1996. 38 See supra, note 22. 42 43 36 37 41 39 Hathaway, J.C. (1991), The law of refugee status, Butterworths, Toronto; Goodwin-Gill, G.S. (1996), The refugee in international law (2nd ed.), Clarendon Paperbacks, Oxford. 148