CAT/C/65/D/691/2015 husband had reported her to the police for assaulting him, a fact that was not disputed by the complainant. 7.16 The State party stresses that, according to the Convention, “torture” refers to severe pain or suffering inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. A threat of violence from close family members or the stigma or dishonour that someone may suffer from a divorce does not in itself constitute torture according to the Convention. The State party notes that the Committee has emphasized that the issue of whether a State party is under an obligation to refrain from expelling a person who might risk pain or suffering inflicted by a nongovernmental entity, without the consent or acquiescence of the Government, falls outside of the scope of article 3 of the Convention. 21 7.17 With regard to the alleged risk from the Iranian authorities due to the complainant’s political engagement, the State party submits that the complainant herself acknowledged that she did not have a prominent role in the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan, even if she was a member. The Migration Agency found that her account was not credible and that she had not plausibly demonstrated that her engagement was such that she would have been of interest to the authorities. The Migration Court concurred with the Migration Agency that the information in the written certificate submitted by the complainant in support of her allegation regarding her political activity did not correspond to the information she had submitted about why she left the Islamic Republic of Iran, rendering the certificate of very low probative value. The fact that she appeared in photographs with, according to the complainant, leading figures in the organization did not alter the Migration Court’s view of the need for protection. The complainant’s arguments that her ex-husband would interfere with her and spread false accusations in various ways are speculative and not supported by any evidence or factual events. As the Migration Agency concluded, nothing has emerged to suggest that her ex-husband would have access to the images of her at political meetings. Furthermore, the complainant was allowed to leave the Islamic Republic of Iran legally, using her Iranian passport, which suggests that she was not of any particular interest to the Iranian authorities. Therefore, the State party concludes that the complainant has failed to demonstrate that there are substantial grounds for believing that she would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture in the meaning of the Convention upon return to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 8.1 On 14 August 2017, the complainant submitted her comments on the State party’s observations on the merits of the communication. With regard to the general human rights situation, the complainant submits that the need for protection against a risk of being subjected to torture in the Islamic Republic of Iran is not dependent on whether the human rights situation in the country amounts to a general level of persecution. She notes that the State party fails to acknowledge in its observations that the complainant, apart from being a woman, is also of Kurdish descent and, as such, is part of a marginalized minority in the Islamic Republic of Iran that faces ill-treatment from both the regime and Iranian society. For this reason, the assessment of the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran today, as it applies to her case, cannot focus solely on the situation of women in the Islamic Republic of Iran, but must also take into account the situation of Kurds there too. The complainant references a Home Office report of the United Kingdom in which it is stated that Kurds in the Islamic Republic of Iran are subject to discrimination that negatively affects their access to basic services.22 According to the report, politically active Kurds are subject to arbitrary arrests, prolonged detention and physical abuse by the Iranian authorities. The report also concludes that, where a person can demonstrate, to a reasonable degree of likelihood, that he or she is known or is likely to be made known to the Iranian authorities on the basis of membership or perceived membership of a Kurdish political group, the person should be granted asylum. 21 22 G.R.B. v. Sweden (CAT/C/20/D/83/1997), para. 6.5. United Kingdom, Home Office, “Country Information and Guidance: Iran – Kurds and Kurdish political groups”, version 2.0 (London, July 2016), p. 7, available at www.refworld.org/pdfid/578f67c34.pdf. 9