CAT/C/53/D/473/2011 file led it to conclude that they would face torture upon return to the Islamic Republic of Iran. On 7 March 2011, the Federal Administrative Tribunal unified the separate asylum appeals from the complainants and noted that the complainants’ request for free legal aid was incomplete. It also stated that it had received a report from the Swiss Embassy in Tehran indicating that it was possible to procure court files from Revolutionary Tribunals in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The complainants were given a time frame in which to comment on those findings, but they failed to do so. On 30 June 2011, the Tribunal confirmed its decision to expel the complainants. The State party adds that all the arguments presented by the complainants were considered in a complete manner and with strict adherence to the procedures of the Federal Office for Migration. 4.4 The State party recalls that, under article 3 of the Convention, States parties are prohibited from expelling, returning or extraditing a person to another State where there exists substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be subjected to torture. To determine the existence of such grounds, the competent authorities must take into account all relevant considerations, including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. With reference to the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, the State party adds that the author should establish the existence of a “personal, present and real” risk of being subjected to torture upon return to the country of origin. The existence of such a risk must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. Additional grounds must exist for the risk of torture to qualify as “real” (paras. 6 and 7). The following elements must be taken into account to assess the existence of such a risk: evidence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in the country of origin; allegations of torture or ill-treatment sustained by the author in the recent past and independent evidence thereof; political activity of the author within or outside the country of origin; evidence as to the credibility of the author; and factual inconsistencies in the claim of the author (para. 8). 4.5 With regard to the existence of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights, the State party submits that this is not in itself a sufficient basis for concluding that an individual might be subjected to torture upon his or her return to his or her country. The Committee should establish whether the individual concerned would be “personally” at risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would return. 6 Additional grounds should be adduced for the risk of torture to qualify as “foreseeable, real and personal” under article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention.7 The risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. 8 4.6 In the light of the above, the State party submits that the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran is concerning in several regards. However, it recalls the finding of the Federal Administrative Tribunal that the country is not currently experiencing generalized violence. The State party further reiterates that the country situation is not in itself sufficient ground to conclude that the complainants might be subjected to torture in the event of removal. It argues that the complainants failed to show that they would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture if returned. Furthermore, the State party notes that the reports by the Committee itself, the International Federation for Human Rights, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch on the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran, which were relied upon by the complainants to support their claims and which were reviewed by the Federal Administrative Tribunal, do 6 7 8 6 See communication No. 94/1997, K.N. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 19 May 1998, para. 10.2. Ibid., para. 10.5; and communication No. 100/1997, J.U.A. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 10 November 1998, paras. 6.3 and 6.5. Committee against Torture, general comment No. 1 (1997), para. 6.