Advance unedited version CAT/C/63/D/744/2016 Moreover, in Iraq, the risk of refoulement to Iran is very high in so far as members of the KDPI are considered to be threats to the security and treated accordingly. He thus risks torture, other inhuman treatment or even death. He further argues that if he is deported to Iraq, he will probably be sent to Iran, given that he is an Iranian citizen and that he has neither Iraqi citizenship nor a residence permit. This would imply severe and lifethreatening consequences for him. 3.5 The complainant also considers that he has presented unquestionable evidence to the Swedish authorities that he and his family are Iranian citizens and members of the KDPI; that there is a risk for members of the KDPI to be subjected to assaults and torture by the Iranian regime; and that Iranian authorities have a right to reside in Iraq without a visa and have already killed and kidnapped members of the KDPI. Therefore, the burden of proof should fall on the Swedish authorities, but they nonetheless have not presented country information or other type of information that would contradict his submissions. Moreover, the Swedish authorities should have assessed the vast amount of documents presented as evidence cumulatively, not separately. 3.6 Regarding the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, the complainant argues that it is unclear that an examination has been performed or if there are other reasons why the Court has not considered the issue admissible. In view of the limited information in the Court’s letter, the complainant considers that it cannot be assumed that the European Court has examined the matter in the way provided by article 22 of the Convention. By contrast, when the Court declared inadmissible another application, 9 it clearly stated that it did not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the European Convention or its Protocols. In his case, however, given the scarce information in the reply by the European Court, it is reasonable to assume that the matter has not been examined thoroughly because the reason for inadmissibility can be either procedural or substantive. Therefore, in the presence of such a limited and unclear motivation of the European Court’s decision, the complainant concludes that it should not be used to his detriment because that decision does not involve the examination required to prevent the Committee from considering his case. 3.7 Finally, the complainant argues that when examining the admissibility of his case, the Committee should take into account the new evidence available since his application to the European Court, which proves the risks he faces. He therefore refers to reports attesting the growing influence of Iran in Iraq 10 and the Iraqi Government’s treatment of camps’ residents.11 He states that the security situation in Iraq has deteriorated since he left the country and also since he applied to the European Court.12 State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 On 29 June 2016 and 11 July 2017, the State party respectively submitted observations on the admissibility and the merits of the communication. 4.2 As to the facts of the communication, the State party submits that according to information from Norway13 sent to the Swedish Migration Agency, the complainant lodged an application for asylum in Norway on 1 March 2017. On 7 March 2017, the Swedish Migration Agency received a request from Norway for transfer of the complainant back to Sweden in accordance with Regulation (EU) 604/2013.14 The Swedish Migration Agency 9 10 11 12 13 14 The complainant refers to the case of Yakupova and others v. Sweden (application no. 60300/14). Kenneth Katzman and Carla E. Humud, Iraq: Politics and Governance, Congressional Research Service, 9 March 2016, pp. 35-36, available at https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS21968.pdf. The complainant cites the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran and Kenneth Katzman, Iran, Gulf Security, and U.S. Policy, Congressional Research Service, 14 January 2016, available at https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20160114_RL32048_7e5ae3f05cc484a2478ac62020fc56fa57a5 08a7.pdf. The complainant refers to https://lifos.migrationsverket.se/dokument?documentSummaryId=36927. No further information is provided. Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining 5