CAT/C/64/D/783/2016 Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 6.1 On 19 April 2018, the complainant submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. He alleges that the State party’s submission that he did not have homosexual relationships after the age of 19 or 20 is not correct. He recalls that he stated in his initial complaint that he had had, after that age, a relationship with a man in the Iranian city of Bandar Abbas, and another in 2015, with one of his male minor students. He insists that the only reason why he concealed his homosexuality during his studies was that he feared persecution from the Iranian authorities. He submits, for instance, that while he was studying, some homosexuals were arrested at gay gatherings. He concludes that his abstinence for a short period was not self-determined, opposing the finding of the Federal Administrative Court, but rather was imposed on him because of the Islamic society in his country of origin. He holds that since the State party does not formally challenge his version of events, the Committee should give due consideration to the facts as presented in his initial communication. 6.2 The complainant reiterates that his asylum application was not examined effectively under the accelerated procedure, during which he was interviewed twice in a period of six weeks. He also claims that the State party’s authorities did not properly evaluate the risk of torture if he were deported to the Islamic Republic of Iran, given that he wanted to live openly as a gay man and an atheist. Moreover, the State party’s authorities did not take into account the particular circumstances of his case, namely the fact that he had had to hide his homosexuality for most of his life and that he had even ended up thinking, at some point, that he had to supress it. He argues that presently he wants to live openly as gay regardless of the country in which he resides. 6.3 The complainant claims that his earlier statement, to the authorities of the State party, that sexuality was not very important to him anymore, can be explained by the numerous traumas that he experienced due to his sexual orientation. He points out that his health condition can be attested to by the medical certificate attached to his initial communication. He also argues that the State party failed to take into consideration the recent public expression of his sexual orientation in Switzerland, where he can live freely as a gay man. 6.4 The complainant also submits that the State party’s authorities emphasized the fact that he had concealed his homosexuality at some point in his life, in order for it to be established that in case of return he could live there again by behaving the same way. However, he argues that the State party cannot expect him to hide his sexual orientation in the Islamic Republic of Iran in order to avoid persecution. 6.5 He adds that the State party acknowledged that both apostasy and certain homosexual acts were punishable by the death penalty in the Islamic Republic of Iran, while concluding, however, that the complainant may live there happily as a gay man and an atheist in the private sphere, invoking a “discretion argument”. 33 He claims that this argument is inadmissible according to the approach of the European Court of Human Rights,34 considering that individuals submitting a request for international protection based on their sexual orientation could not be required to hide it. The complainant therefore concludes that it was relevant to assess whether he personally risked torture in the Islamic Republic of Iran as an openly gay man and an atheist. He claims to have established a personal risk of being subjected to torture if returned, due to a combination of his personal circumstances and the situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran. 6.6 The complainant recalls that even though the past experience of torture in his country of origin occurred several years ago, it had to be taken into account when assessing his case, according to the Committee’s general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22. 35 In addition, he insists on the fact that the last time he was abused in the Islamic Republic of Iran was not in 1998, but later, 33 34 35 8 The State party argues that the complainant could hide his homosexuality in the public sphere, without impacting on his private life. The complainant refers to the European Court of Human Rights case I.K. v. Switzerland (application No. 21417/17), judgment of 18 January 2018, para. 24. See para. 29 (b) and (c).