CAT/C/65/D/822/2017 person might not be subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances. Moreover, the Committee notes that since the Islamic Republic of Iran is not party to the Convention, in the event of a violation of the complainant’s rights under the Convention in that country, he would be deprived of the legal option of recourse to the Committee for protection of any kind.22 7.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22, according to which the non-refoulement obligation in article 3 of the Convention exists whenever there are substantial grounds for believing that the person concerned would be in danger of being subjected to torture in a State to which the person is facing deportation, either as an individual or as a member of a group that may be at risk of being tortured in the State of destination. The Committee’s practice has been to determine that substantial grounds exist whenever the risk of torture is foreseeable, personal, present and real (para. 11). Indications of personal risk may include, but are not limited to, the political affiliation or political activities of the complainant, previous torture, incommunicado detention or other forms of arbitrary and illegal detention in the country of origin, and clandestine escape from the country of origin following threats of torture (para. 45). The Committee gives considerable weight to findings of fact made by organs of the State party concerned; however, it is not bound by such findings and will make a free assessment of the information available to it in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, taking into account all the circumstances relevant to each case (para. 50). 7.5 In the present case, the Committee notes that the complainant maintains that he was imprisoned in the Islamic Republic of Iran for having participated in a demonstration. It further notes that, according to the complainant, the State party does not dispute that he was politically active in the Islamic Republic of Iran, but contests the level of his political involvement. The Committee also notes that the State party points to inconsistencies and contradictions in the complainant’s statements and submissions. 7.6 The Committee notes that, according to the State party, the complainant’s political activities in Switzerland do not constitute lasting and intensive activity that could be considered a real and serious threat to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Committee notes that the complainant has not clearly demonstrated that he began his political activities in Switzerland before his first asylum application had been rejected. According to the State party, the complainant’s political activities in Switzerland will not have attracted the Iranian authorities’ attention because, even though the Iranian secret service keeps political activities conducted abroad in opposition to the regime under surveillance, that service focuses its attention on individuals with a particular profile who occupy positions or carry out activities that represent a serious and real threat to the current regime. In that respect, the Committee takes note of the complainant’s evidence of his involvement in such activities. 7.7 The Committee notes that the State party recognizes that legitimate concern can be expressed regarding the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran. In that connection, the Committee recalls that it is noted in the most recent report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran that the country’s legislation continues to authorize the use of punishments such as flogging and amputation for individuals convicted of certain offences (A/HRC/37/68, para. 29). According to that report, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran rejects the notion that amputations and floggings amount to torture and maintains that they are effective deterrents to criminal activity. The Secretary-General also expressed concern about continued restrictions on public freedoms and the related persecution of civil society actors (see para. 5.6 above). The Committee also notes that the State party itself acknowledges that the Iranian authorities monitor the political activities of their citizens abroad, although it maintains that the secret services focus their attention mainly on persons with a particular profile, who occupy positions or carry out activities that represent a serious and real threat to the Iranian regime (see para. 4.5 above). 22 Tahmuresi v. Switzerland (CAT/C/53/D/489/2012), para. 7.7; and Ravanbakhsh Rasooli v. Switzerland, para. 7.2. 9