Submitted by:H.S.V. (represented by counsel, Mr. Bertil Malmlöf) Alleged victim:The complainant State party:Sweden Date of complaint:24 April 2003 (initial submission) The Committee against Torture, established under article 17 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Meeting on 12 May 2004, Adopts the following decision on admissibility. 1.1The complainant is Mr. H.S.V., an Iranian national born in 1948, currently residing in Sweden and awaiting deportation to Iran. He claims that his forcible return to Iran would amount to a violation by Sweden of article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. He is represented by counsel. 1.2On 25 April 2001, the Committee forwarded the communication to the State party for comments, and requested, under rule 108, paragraph 1, of the Committee’s rules of procedure, not to return the complainant to Iran while his complaint was under consideration by the Committee. The State party acceded to this request. The facts as submitted 2.1The complainant was a high-ranking officer in the army of the former Shah of Persia. After the Iranian revolution in 1979, he fled to Turkey and subsequently lived in Bulgaria. Between 1993 and 1996, following the arrival of his wife and daughter in Sweden, he unsuccessfully submitted several applications for a residence permit to the Swedish authorities, before he was granted a temporary residence and work permit on 4 February 1997. On 1 June 1999, the complainant was granted a permanent residence permit. 2.2By judgement of 17 March 2000, the District Court of Norrköping found the complainant guilty of several drug offences and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. It also ordered the complainant’s expulsion from Sweden and prohibited him from returning to the country before 1 January 2015. The Court so decided after having sought an opinion from the Swedish Immigration Board, which concluded that no impediment to the enforcement of an expulsion order existed. The complainant did not appeal the judgement of the District Court. 2.3The complainant began to serve his prison term on 6 April 2000; he was released on probation on 25 April 2003. During this period, the “Association for the Rights of Children to a Parent Sentenced to Expulsion” submitted two applications, requesting the Government to revoke the expulsion order against the complainant, under chapter 7, section 16 of the 1989 Aliens Act, on grounds of family unity; these requests were rejected on 25 October 2001 and 15 August 2002, respectively. On 24 April 2003, based on a risk assessment made by the Swedish Migration Board, the Government rejected a similar application submitted by the complainant. The complaint 3.1The complainant claims that his forcible return to Iran would constitute a violation by Sweden of article 3 of the Convention, since he would run a high risk of being arrested and subsequently tortured, or even executed, upon return to that country, given his past military functions, as well as the fact that he had expressed his political views in public. 3.2In support of his claim, he submits that, according to Amnesty International and other international human rights organizations, persecution, arbitrary arrests, torture and ill-treatment, unfair and sometimes secret trials, imprisonment and capital punishment of political opponents frequently occur in Iran. 3.3The complainant submits that he has no relatives and friends, nor any place to stay in Iran, and that he had not returned to that country during the 21 years since his departure. All his family and friends live in Sweden, including his three children, whom he might not see again, given that he will be 67 years old in 2015. 3.4The complainant claims that the same matter has not been, and is not being, examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement, and that he has exhausted domestic remedies. The State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1On 13 June 2003, the State party challenged the admissibility of the communication on grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and lack of substantiation of the complainant’s allegations. 4.2The State party describes relevant domestic legislationa as follows: expulsion on account of a criminal offence constitutes a special sanction for offences, and can be ordered by the court if a convict has been sentenced to a more severe sanction than a fine and if it may be assumed, on the basis of the nature of the offence and other circumstances, that he/she will continue to commit criminal offences in Sweden, or if the offence is so serious that the convict’s expulsion is warranted. When considering whether or not an alien should be expelled, the court must consider his or her family circumstances, the period that he or she has resided in Sweden and the question of whether there are impediments to the enforcement of the expulsion order, such as the existence of reasonable grounds for believing he/she would be in danger of being subjected to capital punishment, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or