CAT/C/35/D/258/2004 Page 7 2.17 The complainant challenges the Danger Opinion in that it states that there has not been a politically motivated arrest or execution of monarchists in Iran since 1996. He says that the founder of the Iran Nation Party, a monarchist political organization, and five of his colleagues were summarily executed in Tehran by members of the Iranian intelligence service in 1998. Monarchists in Iran are very active, but are unwilling to engage in a campaign of terror to achieve their goals. 2.18 The complainant further states that the Danger Opinion is based, in large part, on allegations made by his ex-wife. Such allegations should be regarded as being tainted by strong animosity against the complainant, by reason of their marital separation and divorce. 2.19 The complainant applied for judicial review of the third Danger Opinion. On 12 October 2004, the Federal Court of Canada upheld the Opinion. On 22 February 2005, the complainant filed an application for release on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. On 31 March 2005, he filed an application pursuant to s.84.(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for release as a foreign national who has not been removed from Canada within 120 days after the Federal Court determines a certificate to be reasonable. The complaint 3. According to the complainant, there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be subjected to torture if returned to Iran, in violation of article 3 of the Convention. He refers to reports indicating that torture is practiced extensively in Iran. Should the complainant be removed to that country, attempts to extract information from him will jeopardize not only the complainant’s own life, but also the lives of several others in Iran who at one time or another aided or cooperated with him in his activities against the Iranian regime. State party’s submissions on the admissibility and merits of the complaint 4.1 In its submission of 24 March 2005, the State party indicates that it does not challenge the admissibility of the complaint on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. It notes, however, that the complainant had not made an application under s 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, despite the fact that, in his submission to the Committee, he had expressed his intention to do so. However, the State party claims that the case is inadmissible because the complainant failed to establish a prima facie violation of article 3 of the Convention. If the Committee concluded that the communication was admissible, the State party submits, on the basis of the same arguments, that the case is without merit. 4.2 The State party indicates that in July 1995 the complainant was convicted of assault against his former wife, Ms. J.. They separated in 1995. They have two children who live with the mother. By court order, the complainant is not permitted access to the children out of concern fo r their safety and well being. In December 1995 he was convicted of theft of an amount under $5000 and was fined $100. In January 1997, he was convicted of aggravated assault upon his then girlfriend and sentenced to eight years of imprisonment. The assault occurred while he was on probation with respect to the 1995 assault conviction.