CAT/C/71/D/885/2018 summoned by a court in connection with the matter. Moreover, the judgment in question, namely the enforcement order, as the document is entitled, refers to a previous judgment and a related communication from the Court. Surprisingly, the order’s reference number is not indicated. In any event, given that the document refers to a previous judgment, there is reason to believe that the case in question had already been dealt with by the Iranian authorities and that the procedure must have taken place while the ordinary asylum procedure was under way in Switzerland. It is therefore impossible to understand why the complainant did not mention this procedure at his hearing on 6 April 2016. 4.9 There are also questions surrounding the authenticity of the documents. Firstly, according to the assessment of the State Secretariat for Migration, their form differs from that of comparable documents. Secondly, their wording does not correspond to the legal language of other judgments. In particular, the articles of the laws corresponding to the offences mentioned are not cited. With regard to the content, several elements are meaningless. It is thus apparent from the judgment in question that the complainant would be criminally prosecuted and that his property would be seized. At the end of the document, the complainant is asked to comply with the instructions contained in the judgment within 10 days of the date of issuance. However, it is unclear what this order relates to. If it related to the earlier judgment already mentioned, which lacks a reference number, that would usually be indicated. 4.10 With regard to the arguments presented by the complainant in his communication concerning criminal proceedings allegedly under way against him, they are simply allegations and have not been substantiated. Moreover, when the complainant claims that a previous judgment may have been handed down or that one might be handed down in the future, he contradicts the allegations he himself made in his appeal against the decision of the State Secretariat for Migration dated 11 January 2018, when he claimed that the reference to another judgment was based on a translation error and that the judgment in fact referred to itself. In addition, no subsequent judgments have been placed on file. 4.11 In the light of the foregoing, the State party is of the view that the complainant’s claims are not plausible and that he has failed to demonstrate that he would be at risk of treatment prohibited by the Convention if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s submission 5.1 On 27 May 2019, the complainant submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. He considers that the State party has simply repeated and summarized the arguments used by the State Secretariat for Migration to reject his application for asylum, without addressing the explanations he provided in his communication to the Committee. He claims that on the essential points, the explanations he gave during the asylum procedure were coherent, plausible and consistent. At no time did the Swiss authorities show any willingness to examine impartially the risks facing him. On the contrary, they sought to find alleged contradictions in his numerous statements or to dismiss them perfunctorily as implausible, with the manifestly biased intention of denying him refugee status. 5.2 As an example, the State party’s claim that the complainant has not been able to explain why his girlfriend’s highly religious family allowed him to have a relationship with her outside marriage for four years illustrates this approach. The complainant had already explained in his submission of 18 April 2016 that, although he had known his girlfriend for four years, their contact had been limited to sporadic phone calls and that their relationship only became intimate during a trip in August and September 2015. As his girlfriend’s father had refused his marriage proposal, the pair became intimate during the trip, which the father, a religious fanatic, had forbidden them to take. At no time did the complainant claim to have had an intimate relationship with his girlfriend for four years. Although in the Western cultural context the word “relationship” between two people implies sexual intercourse, this is certainly not the case in the Iranian cultural context. 5.3 It is therefore hardly surprising that the State party is not prepared to attach any importance to the court documents submitted. On the contrary, the documents and the conclusions that can be drawn from them have on the whole been discredited and deemed mere allegations. Although the judgment submitted contains little concrete information, the 6 GE.21-12735