CAT/C/65/D/691/2015 Committee’s decision on admissibility 6. On 25 November 2016, at its fifty-ninth session, the Committee considered the admissibility of the complaint and decided that it was admissible. 17 The Committee concluded that the succinct reasoning provided by the European Court of Human Rights in its decision of 10 February 2015 did not allow the Committee to verify the extent to which the Court had examined the complainant’s application, including whether it conducted a thorough analysis of the elements related to the merits of the case. State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 By note verbale of 30 March 2017, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the complaint. The State party provides its own statement of facts, and notes that the complainant first applied for a Swedish residence permit in October 2010 at the Embassy of Sweden in Tehran, invoking as the legal basis for her application her marriage to her husband, by then a Swedish national. On 10 January 2011, the Swedish Migration Agency (formerly the Swedish Migration Board) rejected the complainant’s application on the grounds that the couple had not seen each other for 13 years and they had not been able to prove that they had been in contact with each other. The Agency further held that the couple had not been simultaneously present at the wedding, nor made any attempt to meet each other in a third country before their marriage. The Agency concluded that their marriage had the sole purpose of obtaining a residence permit for the complainant. 7.2 Upon appeal by the complainant, the Migration Court subsequently revoked the decision by the Migration Agency and granted the complainant a temporary residence permit for one year. The Court concluded that the marriage was legally binding and could therefore serve as a basis for granting the complainant a residence permit. The Migration Agency subsequently granted the complainant a residence permit for the period from 4 October 2011 to 4 October 2012. 7.3 The complainant arrived in Sweden on 30 October 2011, and on 5 August 2012 she applied for an extension of the residence permit. In a letter addressed to the Migration Agency dated 20 June 2013, the complainant’s husband attached a copy of a petition for divorce between him and the complainant dated 10 June 2013. In the letter, he stated, inter alia, that the complainant had entered into the marriage on false pretences and that her main purpose had been to obtain a permanent residence permit in Sweden. On 7 October 2013, an immigration officer had a telephone conversation with the complainant’s husband, who was in the Islamic Republic of Iran at the time. He informed the migration officer that his relationship with the complainant had ceased a few months earlier and that he had filed for divorce. He also stated that the complainant had hit him several times in order to provoke him to hit her back, so that she would be able to go to a women’s shelter and call the police, all in order to obtain a residence permit. He added that he had been threatened by the complainant’s brothers and had reported her to the police. It was later discovered that, on 18 August 2013, the complainant’s husband had filed a simple assault report with the police against the complainant. 7.4 On 18 October 2013, both the complainant and her husband were invited to an interview at the Migration Agency. Only the complainant appeared for the interview. She explained that her husband had been asleep at home when she left, that their relationship was working well, that he had changed his mind about the divorce and that he had withdrawn the assault report. When asked if there was anything hindering her from returning to the Islamic Republic of Iran, the complainant stated that she had no problems with the Iranian authorities and that she was capable of returning. Later that day, the migration officer called the complainant’s husband and learned that he had returned from the Islamic Republic of Iran the previous week; however, he had not seen the complainant, and they did not live in the same apartment. He stated that he did not want the complainant to apply for a residence permit as his spouse or to rely on her ties to him. He added that he had withdrawn his application for a divorce because he and his family in the Islamic 17 6 See S. v. Sweden (CAT/C/59/D/691/2015).