CAT/C/18/D/34/1995 page 6 Ministers. In June 1992, the Iranian consul visited the APHO stand in Bern and attempted to identify the people participating in APHO activities. Counsel concludes that the author's identity is very probably known to the Iranian authorities. 5.2 Counsel adds that on 13 May 1996 the author filed an application for temporary authorization because of his son's medical problems. State party's observations on the admissibility and validity of the communication 6.1 In its observations of 7 August 1996, the State party informs the Committee that it no longer contests the admissibility of the communication. 6.2 The State party summarizes the “facts alleged by the author” and the domestic procedures under way. As regards the points raised by the Swiss authorities, it observes that, “under article 12 (a) of the Asylum Act, an asylum-seeker must prove - or at least make out a good case - that he is a refugee within the meaning of article 3 of the Asylum Act, i.e. that he would be likely to suffer serious harm or that he has good reason to fear that he would suffer such harm, in particular because of his political opinions”, and concludes that “from that standpoint, articles 3 and 12 (a) of the Asylum Act, as interpreted by the Appeal Commission, establish criteria similar to those of article 3 of the Convention, namely, the existence of serious, concrete and personal danger of persecution (art. 3, para. 1; cf. B. Mutombo v. Switzerland, ...), in the determination of which all relevant considerations must be taken into account (art. 3, para. 2), including, in particular, the likelihood that the author's statements are true (Asylum Act, art. 12 (a)) and, where appropriate, the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights (art. 3, para. 2)”. 6.3 The State party also declares that “in the present case, the Appeal Commission confirmed the decision to reject asylum on the basis of the author's statements. It considered that the grounds invoked did not make it possible to conclude that refugee status was highly probable in the author's case. The Appeal Commission took the following points into account in making its decision: The author's statements about his political activity were not sufficiently substantiated, since his knowledge of the political programme of the organization in which he claims to have been active was very sketchy in essential respects; The circumstances in which the author claims to have resumed working with the organization are at variance with what is known about the practice of movements hostile to an established political regime. The author's explanations regarding his alleged conviction following his political activity were also considered to be at variance with the facts; Finally, the author's wife was unable to corroborate his statements at the hearing before the Federal Office for Refugees.”