CAT/C/65/D/822/2017 view that, in the assessment of whether a person was at risk, what was important were concrete efforts towards a targeted and effective change of political conditions in the country rather than the name of the position occupied or the number of activities. 4.6 Given that the complainant has failed to prove his alleged political activities in the Islamic Republic of Iran and the subsequent prosecution, there is no ground for believing that he was perceived as a political opponent by the Iranian authorities before leaving the country. His activities do not go beyond the threshold of generally known political protests in exile. The fact that he is responsible for the website of the Democratic Association for Refugees does not imply an effective or important decision-making role within the organization. Neither does reading the news on the radio indicate an exposed political engagement. The same holds true for the complainant’s Facebook posts, which present information linked to events or criticism of the situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran: these posts do not confer on him the profile of an exposed opponent who may be perceived as dangerous by the Iranian regime. The photographs showing the complainant as a participant in different demonstrations do not entail a high risk of torture in case of return to the Islamic Republic of Iran either, because they do not reveal that he occupied a particular function in this context. The letters delivered by the Democratic Association for Refugees in support of him do not change this assessment because they are probably documents of convenience. 4.7 During the hearing on 5 February 2014 regarding his second asylum request, the complainant declared that he had joined the Democratic Association for Refugees at the beginning of October 2011. It was only afterwards that he claimed that he had joined the organization in September 2011. Given that his first asylum request was dismissed on 23 September 2011, it is evident that – contrary to his allegations – his political engagement in exile started after the rejection of his asylum request. The Iranian authorities are able to make a distinction between such activities aimed at visibility and a genuine engagement emerging from an inner conviction. 4.8 The huge amount of information available on the Internet makes it barely likely that the Iranian authorities would keep it all under surveillance. They would rather focus on those opponents who represented a potential danger to the regime. This hypothesis is confirmed by the large amount of activities throughout the whole of Western Europe, which are critical to the Iranian regime. In the case in hand, there are no specific signs that the Iranian authorities are aware of or interested in the complainant’s activities. 4.9 Referring to the practice of the Swiss authorities, the State party mentions that the Federal Administrative Court dismissed the request of a person with a profile that was similar to that of the complainant. 15 Referring to the Committee’s practice, the State party points out that, unlike the complainant in Tahmuresi v. Switzerland, the complainant does not occupy the position of being in charge of the association in one of the Swiss cantons. 4.10 With regard to the complainant’s credibility and the coherence of the information that he has provided, the Swiss asylum authorities found the complainant’s allegations to be implausible. In particular, he provided vague and partially contradictory information as to the crimes of which he was accused in the Islamic Republic of Iran. He did not explain why he was released on bail when his lawyer allegedly predicted the maximum sentence for his crimes. His allegations as to his journey to Switzerland were also not plausible, given that he claimed that he had travelled hidden in a lorry and he had been able to get out only once, while in Turkey. 4.11 In view of the above, the State party is of the belief that the complainant has not demonstrated that there are serious reasons to believe that he stands a specific and personal risk of being subjected to torture by the Iranian authorities. 15 6 Federal Administrative Court, A. v. Federal Migration Office, Decision No. E-2077/2012, 28 January 2014. The case of that person was then referred to the Committee, which found that there would be no violation in case of deportation to the Islamic Republic of Iran. See Ravanbakhsh Rasooli v. Switzerland (CAT/C/63/D/673/2015).