CAT/C/20/D/89/1997 page 6 State party explains that the author can at any time lodge a new application for re-examination of his case to the Aliens Appeal Board, based on new factual circumstances. Finally, the State party contends that the communication is inadmissible as being incompatible with the provisions of the Convention. 4.6. As to merits of the communication, the State party refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence in the cases of Mutombo v. Switzerland 1 and Ernesto Gorki Tapia Paez v. Sweden, 2 and the criteria established by the Committee, first, that a person must personally be at risk of being subjected to torture, and, second, that such torture must be a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the return of the person to his or her country. 4.7. The State party reiterates that when determining whether article 3 of the Convention applies, the following considerations are relevant: (a) the general situation of human rights in the receiving country, although the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights is not in itself determinative; (b) the personal risk of the individual concerned of being subjected to torture in the country to which he would be returned; and (c) the risk of the individual of being subject to torture if returned must be a foreseeable and necessary consequence. The State party recalls that the mere possibility that a person be subjected to torture in his or her country of origin does not suffice to prohibit his or her return for being incompatible with article 3 of the Convention. 4.8. The State party states that it is aware that Iran is reported to be a major violator of human rights and that there is no indication of improvement. It leaves it to the Committee to determine whether the situation in Iran amounts to a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. 4.9. As regards its assessment of whether or not the author would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture when returned to Iran, the State party relies on the evaluation of the facts and evidence made by the Swedish Board of Immigration and the Aliens Appeal Board. In its decision of 21 April 1995, the Swedish Board of Immigration found that the elements provided by the author gave occasion to doubt the credibility of the author. The Aliens Appeal Board, in its decision of 7 February 1996, also found that the circumstances invoked by the author during the appeal were not trustworthy. 4.10. On 27 March 1996, the Aliens Appeal Board rejected a new application for a residence permit by the author, based on the fact that he has been politically active since his arrival in Sweden and further invoking humanitarian reasons due to his mother’s state of health. The application was turned down by the Aliens Appeal Board, since the circumstances invoked by the author had already been reviewed in the previous decision. A second new application was rejected by the Aliens Appeal Board on 24 February 1997, in which the author stated that he had distributed political material into Iran after his arrival in Sweden. The correspondence which had gone via his sister and another contact, had allegedly been traced back to him by the Iranian