to do this, it is not necessary that all the facts invoked by the author should be proved; it is sufficient that the Committee should consider them to be sufficiently substantiated and reliable. party is required not to return that person to that State. The nature of the activities in which the person engaged is not a relevant consideration in the taking of a decision in accordance with article 3 of the Convention.2 In the present case, the refusal of the competent Swiss authorities to take up the author’s request for review, based on reasoning of a procedural nature, does not appear justified in the light of article 3 of the Convention. 9.7 In the case of the author of the present communication, the Committee considers that his membership of the People’s Mojahedin organization, his participation in the activities of that organization and his record of detention in 1981 and 1983 must be taken into consideration in order to determine whether he would be in danger of being subjected to torture if he returned to his country. The State party has pointed to inconsistencies and contradictions in the author’s statements, which in its opinion cast doubt on the veracity of his allegations. The Committee considers that although there may indeed be some doubt about the nature of the author’s political activities in his country of origin, there can be no doubt about the nature of the activities he engaged in Switzerland for the APHO, which is considered an illegal organization in Iran. The State party confirms these activities by the author and does not deny that skirmishes occurred between APHO representatives and other Iranian nationals in Bern in June 1992. The State party does not say whether it investigated these skirmishes, but the material submitted to the Committee gives the impression that no such investigation took place. In the circumstances, the Committee must take seriously the author’s statement that individuals close to the Iranian authorities threatened the APHO members and the author himself on two occasions, in May 1991 and June 1992. The State party simply noted that Mr. Aemei’s activities within the APHO did not constitute a new development vis-à-vis the criteria established by the case law of the Federal Tribunal and that consequently the competent authorities could not take up the matter of the author’s application for reconsideration. 9.9 Lastly, the Committee is aware of the serious human rights situation in Iran, as reported inter alia to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights by the Commission’s Special Representative on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Committee notes, in particular, the concern expressed by the Commission, especially about the large number of cases of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 9.10 In the light of the content of the preceding paragraphs, the Committee considers that substantial grounds exist for believing that the author and his family would be in danger of being subjected to torture if they were sent back to Iran. 10. Taking account of the above, the Committee is of the view that, in the present circumstances, the State party has an obligation to refrain from forcibly returning the author and his family to Iran, or to any other country where they would run a real risk of being expelled or returned to Iran. 11. The Committee’s finding of a violation of article 3 of the Convention in no way affects the decision(s) of the competent national authorities concerning the granting or refusal of asylum. The finding of a violation of article 3 has a declaratory character. Consequently, the State party is not required to modify its decision(s) concerning the granting of asylum; on the other hand, it does have a responsibility to find solutions that will enable it to take all necessary measures to comply with the provisions of article 3 of the Convention. These solutions may be of a legal nature (e.g., decision to admit the applicant temporarily), but also of a political nature (e.g., action to find a third State willing to admit the applicant to its territory and undertaking not to return or expel him in its turn). 9.8 The Committee is not convinced by the State party’s explanations in so far as they refer to Mr. Aemei’s activities in Switzerland. It would recall that the protection accorded by article 3 of the Convention is absolute. Whenever there are substantial grounds for believing that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture if he was expelled to another State, the State 2 See Views in communication N° 39/1996 (Tapia Páez v. Sweden), adopted on 28 April 1997, para. 14.5. 26