CAT/C/52/D/483/2011-CAT/C/52/D/485/2011 on bail, after their uncle had paid the equivalent of €45,000, until the next court hearing. After their release they fled to Iraq, where they stayed in a Komala peshmerga camp for one year and 16 days. 2.8 The complainants arrived in Finland on 4 October 2008 and applied for asylum the next day.2 They submitted their original identity cards to the Immigration Service in order to prove their identities and provided a statement from the Komala representation abroad in support of their claim to have taken part in political activities. A medical certificate dated 8 December 2008 was also submitted by the complainants to the Immigration Service.3 2.9 On 5 May 2010, the Finnish Immigration Service rejected both asylum applications on the grounds that the accounts of the facts provided by the complainants were not credible and that the complainants had failed to produce any evidence in support of their allegations. The Immigration Service stated that the complainants had not provided any evidence to support their stories about their activities in the Komala party. On 2 July 2010, both complainants appealed to Helsinki Administrative Court. 2.10 In July 2010, Mr. X learned, via the Internet, that his friend and liaison person in the Komala party in the Islamic Republic of Iran, O. N., had been executed in the Islamic Republic of Iran the same month.4 Afraid, the complainants decided to flee from Finland, where their asylum applications had been rejected. They applied for asylum in Denmark. However, after having received information on the European Union Dublin Regulation procedure,5 they both returned voluntarily to Finland in November 2010. 2.11 Mr. X also submits that, on 4 February 2011 and 19 October 2011, two psychiatrists examined him and concluded that he continued to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder and had symptoms consistent with severe depression. On 31 October 2011, a physiotherapist found that he suffered from pains in the right side of his groin and his left foot. According to the physiotherapist’s statement, the pains could be attributable to the torture methods described by the complainant. Mr. Z submitted a statement from a general practitioner which indicates that, “overall, while the injuries seen now are very slight … there is no reason to doubt that they could have been caused during a period of incarceration between April and May 2007, and torture suffered during the same period”. 2.12 Both complainants have continued their political activities while in Finland. They have regularly attended demonstrations against the regime in the Islamic Republic of Iran, repeatedly demonstrating in front of the Iranian Embassy in Helsinki, including on 20 June 2011. They have carried banners, actively organized demonstrations and disseminated information about the Komala party’s activities. Those clarifications were made available, on appeal, to Helsinki Administrative Court. 2.13 On 17 May 2011, Helsinki Administrative Court held an oral hearing and considered the complainants’ case. Their appeal was rejected by three votes to one on 23 June 2011. 2 3 4 5 4 It is not clear from the submission how the complainants ended up in Finland. According to the medical report, Mr. X complained of pain in his left knee, particularly when it was bent. A scar was also discovered in the middle of the middle finger on his left hand and the author mentioned that, as a result, making a fist was painful. The doctor also noticed a large area of red skin at the base of Mr. X’s big toe on his left foot and on his left knee, and stated that they were consistent with, for example, exposure to hot/icy water. According to the doctor, the author appeared to be in good mental health. Although the doctor concluded that the author’s injuries were slight, he found no reason to doubt that they were the result of torture inflicted on the author in the way he described. Mr. X claims that he mentioned O. N.’s name during his asylum interview with the Finnish Immigration Service. Council Regulation (EC) 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national.