intimidated since his brother and father were released in mid-1999. 8.3 With regard to the petitioner's credibility, the State party explains that at both hearings with the Swedish Immigration Board, the petitioner stated that he understood the interpreter. At the second hearing, which took place a month after the petitioner arrived in Sweden, the notes from the hearing were read out and translated for the petitioner who did not object to the content. When asked about his health condition, the petitioner answered that he was well. The State party stresses that the petitioner at neither of the two meetings with the Swedish Immigration Board mentioned the aftereffects of the torture he allegedly was subject to in 1994. Further comments by the petitioner 9.1 On 25 October 2001, counsel submitted further comments to the State party's observations of 2 October 2001. In relation to the State party's argument that the author should have provided documentation for his claim, counsel submits that it is risky and therefore difficult to have documents sent from Iran. 9.2 With regard to the State party's argument that nothing in the case suggests that the petitioner's family has been intimidated after mid-1999, counsel contends that Iranian authorities searched for the petitioner after his participation in the demonstrations in 1999, but that they probably stopped searching because they realized that the petitioner had left Iran. However, the fact that the petitioner has not received information about harassment of his family after 1999 does not imply that the authorities are not still interested in him. 9.3 Counsel also refers to a 2000 report by Ms. Gitte Stedt at the Psychological Department of the University of Stockholm which criticizes the asylum interview procedure followed by the Swedish Migration Board. In particular, the report alleges that the Board officials fail to establish relations of trust with the applicants and, since questions are complex, misunderstandings ensue. Decision concerning admissibility and examination of the merits 10. Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been, and is not being examined under another international investigation or settlement procedure. The Committee notes that the State party has not raised any objection to the admissibility of the communication (cf. State party's observations dated 20 March 2001). The Committee therefore finds that no obstacle to the admissibility of the communication exists and proceeds with the examination of the merits of the communication. 11. In accordance with article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Committee has to determine whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the petitioner would be in danger of being subjected to torture if he returned to Iran. In order to do this, the Committee must, in accordance with article 3, paragraph 2, take into account all relevant considerations, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. In other words, the existence