CAT/C/53/D/489/2012 known for its systematic activities to provide asylum-seekers with personal grounds for asylum, by organizing weekly stands and publishing photographs on the Internet wherein participants are clearly identifiable. Many ADR members were not politically active in Iran and joined the association only after being refused asylum. Since the Federal Administrative Tribunal had confirmed its ruling that mere membership of ADR did not in itself constitute personal grounds for asylum, the association had established a variety of posts, such as logistics or security manager, so that almost every member had a “leadership position” in the association. Such a proliferation of high-level positions diminished their importance. 4.6 The State party asserts that the complainant does not have the profile of a regime opponent who would be considered dangerous by the Iranian authorities. He did not participate in political activities against Iran in Switzerland until FAT denied his request for asylum, and his sudden and recent political engagement is superficial and does not appear to stem from profound conviction. 4.7 The State party submits that the complainant’s entire claim concerning his risk of persecution in Iran, and particularly his activities in Switzerland, was examined by the competent Swiss authorities. The complaint submitted to the Committee does not contain any new information, or any claims as to shortcomings in the State party’s asylum procedure. The State party refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence to the effect that “it is within the purview of the courts of the States parties to the Convention to assess the facts and evidence in a case”.2 In particular, the Committee should examine the facts and evidence where it can be established that “the evidence was assessed in a patently arbitrary manner or one that amounted to a miscarriage of justice” 3 In the case in question, the facts submitted by the complainant do not show any such irregularities. 4.8 The State party also observes that the complainant refers to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of R.C. v. Sweden.4 However, in that case the applicant was able to prove his ill-treatment due to his political engagement in Iran, and therefore the Court declared that there would be a violation of the prohibition of torture in the event of his forced return. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 In his comments of 10 September 2012, the complainant contests the State party’s contention that he had not demonstrated that he would be at a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to the Convention if he were returned to Iran. He reiterates that even ordinary, low-level, peaceful anti-regime demonstrators and rejected Iranian asylum seekers faced a risk of treatment contrary to the Convention.5 Given his high-level political activity in ADR, he would face an even higher risk of persecution. 2 3 4 5 The State party refers to communication No. 419/2010, Ktiti v. Morocco, decision adopted on 26 May 2008, para. 8.7. Ibid. See footnote 1. The complainant refers to the recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights in S.F. and others v. Sweden, application No. 52077/10, adopted on 15 May 2012, where the Court referred to Iran as “a country where on all accounts the human rights situation gives rise to grave concern. It is noted that the country information has changed and that the situation appears to have deteriorated in Iran since the domestic authorities determined the case. It is evident from the current information available on Iran that the Iranian authorities frequently detain and ill-treat persons who peacefully participate in oppositional or human rights activities in the country. The Court notes that it is not only the leaders of the political organizations or other high-profile persons who are detained but that 5