CAT/C/63/D/673/2015 4.8 The State party further points out that, during his second hearing before the Federal Office for Migration, the complainant stated that he had become a supporter of the Democratic Association for Refugees, that he had participated in a number of protests in Zurich and Bern between March and June 2009, that he had recited a poem during a radio broadcast, that he kept a blog and that he presented a broadcast on a local radio station. These activities were carefully reviewed by the Federal Administrative Court, which ruled that the tasks performed by the presenter of a radio broadcast were essentially limited to reading the news and commentary and were therefore not proof of any particular political profile held by the complainant. The Court held that the same applied to the position of head of production of the broadcast. Furthermore, the State party points out that the complainant did not clarify before the Federal Administrative Court or to the Committee how these activities had supposedly put him at political risk. With regard to the articles published in the complainant’s name, the State party notes, like the Federal Administrative Court, that the articles were admittedly critical but were rather general in their wording. The complainant’s participation in the activities of the Democratic Association of Refugees, such as protests, has equally done nothing to establish a political profile that could draw the attention of the Iranian authorities. 4.9 The State party is not convinced that the complainant’s health condition is the result of the end of his political activity, since it is clear from the case file that the complainant has not been actively involved with the radio station since April 2012 and that his last article dates from 14 October 2013. Given that the complainant did not occupy an important position within a political organization opposed to the Iranian regime, the State party considers his situation to be distinct from the situations of other complainants whose cases have been brought before the Committee. In that connection, the State party points out that Mr. Azizi was an active member of the Swiss branch of the KDP of Iran and president of the regional executive committee for several cantons; 18 Mr. Tahmuresi had been an active member of the Democratic Association for Refugees in Switzerland since 2006, was one of the leaders of that organization, which openly opposes the Iranian regime, and was responsible for recruiting new members; 19 and the complainants X. and Z. were active members of the Komala party (Revolutionary Workers’ Committee of Iranian Kurdistan), alongside various members of their family, and had previously been detained and tortured in Iran.20 Moreover, the complainant has been unable to prove that members of his family residing in Iran have been harassed or threatened. 4.10 With regard to the complainant’s credibility and the consistency of the information he has provided, the State party points out that the Swiss asylum authorities found the complainant’s version of events to be implausible. The Federal Office for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court stated that the complainant had presented two diametrically opposed accounts of the events surrounding his arrest. According to his initial account, the complainant had travelled to Sardasht to pick up his colleague Mohammadi so that they might go together to the home of his contact, Barzagar, but Mohammadi had ultimately stayed in Sardasht. According to his second account of the events, the complainant had taken Mohammadi to his family home in Tehran. The complainant also presented two entirely different accounts of the events surrounding an alleged meeting in a garden in Ahmad Abad-e Mostowfi (Tehran). During his first hearing, the complainant stated that he had taken his contact, Barzagar, to the garden in question. Upon arrival, the complainant had given the statutes of the political parties concerned to Barzagar, who had thrown them to the ground when passing through the entrance to the garden. At his second hearing, the complainant stated that it was during a conversation at his workplace regarding their imminent meeting with Mohammadi that Barzagar had asked him whether he had brought the statutes. The complainant had told Barzagar that they were in the car. Upon their arrival at the garden, Barzagar had taken the statutes and had dropped a few pages, which he had then picked up before continuing towards the entrance to the garden and knocking on the door. 18 19 20 6 See Azizi v. Switzerland, para. 8.6. See Tahmuresi v. Switzerland, para. 7.6. See X. and Z. v. Finland (CAT/C/52/D/483/2011-CAT/C/52/D/485/2011), paras. 7.6–7.7. GE.18-12643