CAT/C/52/D/483/2011-CAT/C/52/D/485/2011 political activities of the complainants were described only superficially, without any supporting evidence. Similarly, regarding the accounts of torture, the judicial proceedings, the sentence and the complainants’ release on bail, the complainants provided no evidence except their own account of events. 4.4 The State party concedes that there are major issues with the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran. It contends that members of the Komala party, which is illegal in the Islamic Republic of Iran, can be subject to strict measures. It submits, however, that the complainants failed to provide evidence of their membership of Komala. They provided a certificate of membership from the party’s representative in Sweden, but the certificate does not in itself enable conclusions to be drawn about the complainants’ position and activities, or the level of potential threat if their membership became known to the authorities in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Even if the information provided by the complainants is considered to be true, they cannot be regarded as high-profile members of the party and would not attract attention from the Iranian authorities if returned home. 4.5 The State party further submits that the medical statements the complainants presented to the authorities provide evidence of only minor injuries and do not definitively indicate whether the injuries resulted from torture or ill-treatment. The State party claims that the complainants in fact travelled to Finland to reunite with their family only, not because they were concerned about being tortured in the Islamic Republic of Iran. 4.6 It further notes that, under article 3 of the Convention, States parties are prohibited from expelling, returning or extraditing a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. With reference to the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1996) on the implementation of article 3, the State party adds that the complainants must establish the existence of a personal, present and real risk of being subjected to torture upon return to the country of origin. The existence of such a risk must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. Additional grounds must exist for the risk of torture to qualify as real.10 The following elements must be taken into account to assess the existence of such a risk: evidence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in the country of origin; allegations of torture or ill-treatment sustained by the author in the recent past and independent evidence thereof; political activity of the author within or outside the country of origin; evidence as to the credibility of the author; and factual inconsistencies in the claim of the author.11 4.7 The State party refers to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, which also refers to the personal nature of risk necessary to trigger protection under the European Convention on Human Rights.12 The State party submits that there is no indication in the present case that the complainants are currently wanted by the Iranian authorities. 4.8 As to the statements from the two psychiatrists and the physiotherapist who treated Mr. X, the State party recalls that the statements were not made available to the Supreme Administrative Court. Mr. X provided the court with one medical statement only, dated 8 December 2008. According to that statement, the cause of his injuries cannot be definitively determined, and, in any event, the new medical statements do not add any new or significant evidence warranting a different assessment of the case. 10 11 12 6 General comment No. 1 (1996) on the implementation of article 3, Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-third Session, Supplement No. 44 (A/53/44 and Corr. 1), annex IX, paras. 6 and 7. Ibid., para. 8. The State party refers to Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 30 October 1991.