the APHO in the course of the ordinary procedure for obtaining refugee status, which led to the decision of the Swiss Appeal Commission of 26 January 1993, because he had not been aware that those activities would be a determining factor. The situation changed after the decision, when he learned that he would have to return to Iran. At that point, he realized that because of his political activities in Iran before 1990 and, in particular, because of his political activities in Switzerland since 1990, he and his wife ran a very great risk of being subjected to acts contrary to article 3 of the Convention if they returned to Iran. Counsel repeats that since 1990 the author has been active in the APHO, which is considered an illegal and dissident organization in Iran and whose activities in Switzerland are monitored by the Iranian secret police. The author distributed leaflets attacking the regime in Iran, and in May 1991 he was seen and threatened by the brother of the President of the Iranian Council of Ministers. In June 1992, the Iranian consul visited the APHO stand in Bern and attempted to identify the people participating in APHO activities. Counsel concludes that the author’s identity is very probably known to the Iranian authorities. 6.3 The State party also declares that “in the present case, the Appeal Commission confirmed the decision to reject asylum on the basis of the author’s statements. It considered that the grounds invoked did not make it possible to conclude that refugee status was highly probable in the author’s case. The Appeal Commission took the following points into account in making its decision: The author’s statements about his political activity were not sufficiently substantiated, since his knowledge of the political programme of the organization in which he claims to have been active was very sketchy in essential respects; The circumstances in which the author claims to have resumed working with the organization are at variance with what is known about the practice of movements hostile to an established political regime. The author’s explanations regarding his alleged conviction following his political activity were also considered to be at variance with the facts; Finally, the author’s wife was unable to corroborate his statements at the hearing before the Federal Office for Refugees.” 5.2 Counsel adds that on 13 May 1996 the author filed an application for temporary authorization because of his son’s medical problems. The State party concludes that Swiss legislation essentially uses the same conditions for prohibiting return as those laid down in article 3 of the Convention. State party’s observations on the admissibility and validity of the communication 6.4 The State party refers to the text of article 3 of the Convention and the Committee’s practice of considering whether there are specific grounds for believing that the individual would be in personal danger of being subjected to acts of torture in the country to which he would be returned. The existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights does not in itself constitute a sufficient ground for concluding that a person would be in danger of being subjected to torture on his return to that country. 6.1 In its observations of 7 August 1996, the State party informs the Committee that it no longer contests the admissibility of the communication. 6.2 The State party summarizes the “facts alleged by the author” and the domestic procedures under way. As regards the points raised by the Swiss authorities, it observes that, “under article 12 (a) of the Asylum Act, an asylum-seeker must prove—or at least make out a good case—that he is a refugee within the meaning of article 3 of the Asylum Act, i.e., that he would be likely to suffer serious harm or that he has good reason to fear that he would suffer such harm, in particular because of his political opinions”, and concludes that “from that standpoint, articles 3 and 12 (a) of the Asylum Act, as interpreted by the Appeal Commission, establish criteria similar to those of article 3 of the Convention, namely, the existence of serious, concrete and personal danger of persecution (art. 3, para. 1; cf. B. Mutombo v. Switzerland, ...), in the determination of which all relevant considerations must be taken into account (art. 3, para. 2), including, in particular, the likelihood that the author’s statements are true (Asylum Act, art. 12 (a)) and, where appropriate, the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights (art. 3, para. 2)”. 6.5 The State party observes that “in the present case, the author’s statements concerning his political activity with the People’s Mojahedin did not appear to be sufficiently substantiated in the opinion of the competent Swiss authorities”. It maintains that, “in view of the inconsistency of the author’s statements, they were not sufficiently plausible to cause the Swiss authorities to consider that refugee status was highly probable in the case of the author of the communication. The allegation of a risk of inhuman treatment if the author were to return to Iran, which is based principally, if not exclusively, on the consequences of his political activity cannot seriously be taken into account when it has never been established that he engaged in the political activities in question, or even that he was a member of a party that opposed the existing political regime”. 23