CAT/C/47/D/381/2009 present regime in Iran, distributed publications put out by the association and participated in various events organized by NGOs and local churches in his canton. As a senior member of the association, he claims to take part in the strategic planning of its activities, and his name and address have been published in its monthly magazine. The Committee also notes that the complainant’s son has been granted refugee status on the basis of activities comparable to those carried out by his father in the association, in particular the collection of signatures for petitions, the distribution of its monthly magazine, Kanoun, and involvement in a radio project. The State party has not contested this information. Given that the State party concluded that the complainant’s son could not be returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran on account of his political profile, which would imperil his safety upon return, the Committee finds that there is a difference in treatment, since the same authorities are prepared to send his father back to the Islamic Republic of Iran, even though he carries out similar activities and is exposed to similar risks. 9.6 In the light of all these circumstances, including the general human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the personal situation of the complainant, who continues to engage in opposition activities for the Democratic Association for Refugees and whose son has been granted refugee status, and bearing in mind its preceding jurisprudence,22 the Committee is of the opinion that he could well have attracted the attention of the Iranian authorities. The Committee therefore considers that there are substantial grounds for believing that he would risk being subjected to torture if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran with his wife and his son, Armin Faragollah. Moreover, the Committee notes that, since Iran is not a party to the Convention, the complainant would be deprived of the legal option of recourse to the Committee for protection of any kind. 10. The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, consequently concludes that the removal of the complainant and his family to the Islamic Republic of Iran would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 11. The Committee urges the State party, in accordance with rule 112, paragraph 5, of its rules of procedure, to inform it, within 90 days from the date of the transmittal of this decision, of the steps taken in response to the decision expressed above. [Adopted in English, French and Spanish, the French text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic, Chinese and Russian as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.] 22 10 See the Committee’s communications No. 339/2008, Amini v. Denmark, decision adopted on 15 November 2010, para 9.8, and No. 357/2008, Jahani v. Switzerland, see footnote 19 above, para. 9.4. GE.12-40167