CAT/C/53/D/470/2011 complainant’s argument that forged documents were rarely used in the Islamic Republic of Iran, that arrest warrants are normally not handed over to suspects, and that the address indicated on the summons is commonly used as the nearest reference to the exact address. 4.12 Furthermore, the asylum authorities stated that the complainant had failed to indicate his exact travel itinerary, which was unusual from him as a student. His account lacked personal details, including regarding the charges against him in the Islamic Republic of Iran, which normally should have prompted him to take the necessary personal security measures. Moreover, it had never been alleged, in the course of the asylum proceedings, that the complainant had suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder or that such disorder had caused a divergence in his statements to the asylum authorities. 4.13 The asylum authorities established that the complainant had failed to prove that he had left the Islamic Republic of Iran illegally. The State party submits that the lack of credibility of his allegations of persecution confirms that conclusion. Furthermore, even if the complainant had demonstrated that he had departed from his country of origin illegally and that his asylum application had been brought to the attention of the Iranian authorities, this would not be sufficient, per se, to conclude that he would be at risk of being subjected to ill-treatment or persecution in his country of origin. 4.14 The State party submits that, in the light of the foregoing, there are no substantial grounds to fear that the complainant would be concretely and personally exposed to torture if he were returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. His allegations and the evidence provided do not allow the conclusion to be drawn that his return would expose him to a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture. The State party, therefore, invites the Committee to find that the return of the complainant to the Islamic Republic of Iran would not constitute a violation of the international obligations of Switzerland under article 3 of the Convention. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations, and further submissions 5.1 On 3 April 2012, the complainant presented his comments on the State party’s observations. He reiterates that his deportation to the Islamic Republic of Iran would expose him to a real and personal risk of being subjected to arrest and torture, particularly in the light of his repeated criticism of the Iranian political regime, his belonging to a group of politically active students, his expulsion from university, his accusation of fomenting unrest, his participation in demonstrations against the Iranian Government, his arrest during the demonstration of 27 December 2009 and his escape by injuring an official, his possession of banned material, the arrest warrant against him, the summons against him by the Revolutionary Tribunal, and his asylum request in Switzerland. He underlines that he provided a detailed description of the events to the asylum authorities. His statements are highly credible and plausible, especially in the light of his personal situation and the general situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and cannot be considered superficial, contrary to the State party’s assertion. 5.2 The complainant refers to independent reports to underline the seriousness of human rights concerns in the Islamic Republic of Iran, notably the persecution of political opponents and the ever-increasing number of arrests and public executions, as well as the arrests and ill-treatment of failed asylum seekers. Iranians who left the country illegally are systematically questioned upon return and can be detained for up to seven days and/or brought before the special court in Merhabad Airport in Tehran, which can sentence them to two years’ imprisonment for having left the country illegally. The European Court of Human Rights found that deportation to the Islamic Republic of Iran, given the country’s 8