Decision; Subjects: SWEDEN, TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL TREATMENT; [CAT: UNO-Antifolterkonvention, Übereinkommen gegen Folter; Convention contre la torture; Convenzione contro la tortura]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.25-20934 (E) 230126 260126
Committee against Torture
Decision adopted by the Committee under article 22 of the
Convention, concerning communication No. 1078/2021*, **, ***
Communication submitted by:
Z (represented by counsel, Rebecca Ahlstrand)
Alleged victim:
The complainant
State Party:
Sweden
Date of complaint:
17 June 2021 (initial submission)
Document references:
Decision taken pursuant to rules 114 and 115 of
the Committee’s rules of procedure, transmitted
to the State Party on 22 June 2021 (not issued in
document form)
Date of adoption of decision:
14 November 2025
Subject matter:
Deportation of the complainant to the Islamic
Republic of Iran
Procedural issue:
Level of substantiation of claims
Substantive issue:
Risk to life or risk of torture or other cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,
if deported to country of origin
(non-refoulement)
Article of the Convention:
3
1.1
The complainant is Z, a national of the Islamic Republic of Iran born in 1985. At the
time of the initial submission, his request for asylum in the State Party had been rejected and
he was facing deportation to the Islamic Republic of Iran. The complainant claims that, if the
State Party were to proceed with his deportation, it would be in violation of its obligations
under article 3 of the Convention. The State Party has made the declaration pursuant to
article 22 (1) of the Convention, effective from 26 June 1987. The complainant is represented
by counsel.
1.2
On 22 June 2021, pursuant to rule 114 (1) of its rules of procedure, the Committee,
acting through its Rapporteur on new complaints and interim measures, requested the State
Party not to deport the complainant to the Islamic Republic of Iran while the complaint was
being considered by the Committee.
* Adopted by the Committee at its eighty-third session (10–28 November 2025).
** The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the communication:
Todd Buchwald, Jorge Contesse, Claude Heller, Erdogan Iscan, Peter Vedel Kessing, Liu Huawen,
Maeda Naoko, Ana Racu, Abderrazak Rouwane and Bakhtiyar Tuzmukhamedov.
*** A joint opinion by Committee members Todd Buchwald and Ana Racu (dissenting) is annexed to the
present decision.
United Nations
CAT/C/83/D/1078/2021
Convention against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment
Distr.: General
26 January 2026
Original: English
CAT/C/83/D/1078/2021
2
GE.25-20934
Factual background
2.1
The complainant is a Sunni Muslim belonging to the Baluchi ethnic group. In April
2015, he joined the Balochistan People’s Party in the Islamic Republic of Iran and published
material critical of the regime.1 After his cousin was arrested for similar activities,2 the
complainant fled the country illegally3 and applied for asylum in Sweden on 15 October
2015, claiming that he was at risk of being subjected to torture and ill-treatment in the Islamic
Republic of Iran owing to his ethnicity and political activities.
2.2
On 2 August 2018, the Swedish Migration Agency rejected the application, finding
that Z’s claims of his political activities in the Islamic Republic of Iran were not credible.
The reasoning given by the Agency was that the complainant was not able to say anything
about the party’s members or message, the information regarding his cousin’s arrest by the
police was based solely on his own assumptions and the allegations of police searching for
him in his home were largely vague and based on second-hand information. The Agency then
held that the complainant had not demonstrated that he had been noticed by the Iranian regime
following his activities for the Balochistan People’s Party in Sweden. It considered the
complainant’s statement that the Iranian authorities would be interested in his Facebook
activities to be mere speculation, given that he had never been noticed by them before. The
Agency noted that, although the situation for the Baluchi in the Islamic Republic of Iran was
difficult, the fact of belonging to a vulnerable minority group was not sufficient on its own
to be considered as being in need of protection. It also noted that the complainant had declared
that he had not personally been victimized for belonging to an ethnic group.
2.3
On 10 October 2019, Luleå Administrative Court dismissed the complainant’s appeal.
After hearing the complainant, the court considered that his account of the events in the
Islamic Republic of Iran was vague and lacked detail. The court indicated that the
complainant had been unable to elaborate as to how he went about placing material critical
of the regime in his home locality, despite several questions about it, or as to his cousin’s
political activities. He also provided conflicting information as to how he became aware that
his cousin had been detained. The court therefore concluded that the complainant had not
plausibly demonstrated that he had been noticed by the Iranian authorities before fleeing the
country. While not disputing the complainant’s political activities in Sweden, the court
subsequently held that the complainant had not plausibly demonstrated that he would be
threatened in the Islamic Republic of Iran on account of his political activities in Sweden.
Against that background, there was also no reason to fear that the complainant risked being
subjected to treatment constituting grounds for protection because he had left his country
without a valid exit permit and because he had applied for asylum in Sweden. On
20 November 2019, the Migration Court of Appeal refused him leave to appeal.
2.4
The complainant continued his political activities while in Sweden. He participated in
several demonstrations organized by the Balochistan People’s Party and attended meetings.
He published material on Baluchi independence under his own name and was active for that
cause, also under his own name, on Facebook and Instagram. He also travelled outside
Sweden to protest against the regime in front of the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran
to a third country. The police were called, and the complainant was detained and sentenced
to a fine for trespassing on the embassy’s property, then subsequently taken into custody for
transfer to Sweden.
2.5
On an unknown date, the complainant applied for suspension of enforcement of the
deportation decision, owing to new circumstances. He claimed that he had an ongoing and
active engagement within the Balochistan People’s Party and mentioned his participation in
the demonstration at the embassy in a third country. He considered that he would therefore
be known to the Iranian authorities. After that demonstration, his father had been arrested by
the police in the Islamic Republic of Iran and, after a few days, was taken to the hospital and
declared dead, although he had been healthy before the detention. The complainant’s family
1 The complainant provided no further details.
2 The complainant provided no further details.
3 The complainant provided no further details.
CAT/C/83/D/1078/2021
GE.25-20934
3
suspected that his father had been subjected to torture. The complainant produced a video
showing that he was at the demonstration at the embassy.
2.6
On 11 September 2020, the Swedish Migration Agency rejected the complainant’s
request for suspension of the deportation order. It found that, in a decision issued by the
administrative authorities of the third country, it was mentioned that the complainant had
entered that country the day after the complainant claimed that he had demonstrated at the
embassy. The third country’s authorities did not specify which day the complainant had
demonstrated at the embassy or that he had been detained by the police and convicted of
trespassing on the embassy property. The Agency therefore concluded that the complainant
had not submitted any documents that supported the assertion that the complainant had
demonstrated at the embassy, had been detained by the police in that country and had been
sentenced to a fine, or that embassy staff and/or the Iranian regime had become aware of the
complainant. The complainant had not submitted any documents to support his allegation
that his father had died or that his death was linked to the complainant’s political activities.
2.7
On 13 October 2020, Luleå Administrative Court dismissed the complainant’s appeal,
considering that he had not shown it to be probable that the Iranian authorities had become
aware of him in connection with the incident at the embassy in the third country or had
subsequently acquired a special interest in him. On 19 November 2020, the Migration Court
of Appeal refused him leave to appeal.
2.8
On 20 November 2023, the complainant’s deportation order expired. On 27 November
2023, he submitted a new application for asylum and produced photos and videos from
several demonstrations that he had attended and interviews that he had given. He also
contended that he managed one of the social media accounts of the Balochistan People’s
Party.
2.9
On 20 September 2024, the Swedish Migration Agency rejected the application.
While it conceded that the Iranian authorities’ intelligence activities in Sweden did target
asylum-seekers belonging to minority groups considered by the regime to pose a threat, it
remained unclear how thoroughly the Iranian authorities could monitor the content of
messages on foreign social media platforms. It also accepted that the fact that the complainant
belonged to the Baluchi minority group entailed an elevated risk of persecution. However,
the vulnerability of the group was not such that mere membership was in itself sufficient for
a person to be considered to have a well-founded fear of persecution in the Islamic Republic
of Iran. In that regard, the Agency observed that no information had emerged to suggest that
the complainant had previously been subjected to persecution in the Islamic Republic of Iran
on the grounds of his ethnicity.
2.10
The Swedish Migration Agency did not question the complainant’s allegation that he
had carried out an act of protest outside the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran to a third
country, but it noted that there was nothing to specifically indicate that the Iranian authorities
had taken notice of the complainant because of it. The complainant did not submit any
documents to support the claim that embassy staff in that country had filed a police report
against him or that he had subsequently been detained and fined. The Agency did not question
the assertions that the complainant was a member of the Balochistan People’s Party in
Sweden, that he had taken part in the party’s activities in the way that he had described or
that the activities that he had undertaken typically displeased the Iranian authorities.
However, no specific details had emerged to support the claim that the complainant’s
engagement had drawn the attention of the Iranian authorities.
2.11
The Swedish Migration Agency noted that there was no evidence that the
complainant’s role as an administrator of the party’s social media accounts was public or that
his personal data had appeared in any of the party’s public channels. With regard to the
complainant’s participation in demonstrations, it had not emerged that he had any distinct
public role apart from having given a speech at one of them to around 10 people. There was
no evidence that the speech was published or otherwise disseminated. With regard to the
scale of the complainant’s engagement, the Agency pointed to a supplementary submission
of 11 September 2024, wherein the complainant had stated that he regularly took part in party
meetings, but that he had not taken part in any demonstrations in the preceding six months.
CAT/C/83/D/1078/2021
4
GE.25-20934
The Agency therefore assessed that his political activity in Sweden was still at a low level
and, in addition, that it had diminished in scale.
2.12
The Swedish Migration Agency did not question the submission that the complainant
had published material on social media that was critical of the Iranian regime. However, there
was no evidence to show or suggest that the Iranian authorities had noticed or monitored the
complainant’s social media accounts. The Agency noted that the engagement with Z’s posts
appeared to be low relative to the large number of followers. The screenshots from his
Facebook and Instagram accounts produced on 11 September 2024 showed that four of his
Facebook posts had received two, two, five and five likes, respectively. One of those posts
received one comment and had been shared once, and one of the posts had been shared twice.
The other screenshots did not show the number of likes or potential dissemination. The four
screenshots that displayed Instagram posts showed that the complainant had received 12, 18,
15 and 4 likes, respectively, and no comments. The Agency concluded that the evidence
regarding the number of followers and interactions on the complainant’s social media
accounts was not sufficient for his posts to be considered to have had such a reach that they
might have attracted the interest of the Iranian authorities.
2.13
The Agency noted that an interview with the complainant on 17 October 2023 had
been published on Instagram by two accounts with relatively large numbers of followers and
accepted that the Instagram accounts had published posts that typically displeased the Iranian
authorities. However, it held that the post on which the complainant had appeared only had
2,912 likes, which the Agency considered to be a relatively low number. The number of
views was not shown. Apart from the interview published on 17 October 2023, the
complainant’s participation in demonstrations was published on platforms with relatively
limited reach and exposure. In the light of the foregoing, the Agency concluded that the
complainant had not plausibly demonstrated that his political activity in Sweden had come
to the attention of the Iranian authorities.
2.14
As to the complainant’s allegation of the harassment of his family members because
of his political activity in Sweden, the Swedish Migration Agency did not question the
assertion that his father had passed away, but found that the death certificate could not serve
as support for the claims that his father had been detained because of the complainant’s
political activities in Sweden or that his death could in any way be linked to the complainant.
2.15
On 5 February 2025, the Stockholm Administrative Court dismissed the
complainant’s appeal. On 20 March 2025, the Migration Court of Appeal refused him leave
to appeal.
Complaint
3.1
The complainant submits that, if he is returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran, he
would face a real risk of persecution and ill-treatment because of his ethnicity and political
activities, as well as his illegal departure from the country. He notes that Baluchi activists are
persecuted in the Islamic Republic of Iran, with reports of their disappearance, detention,
torture and ill-treatment.
3.2
The fact that the complainant is politically active for the Balochistan People’s Party
in Sweden, has published widespread material on the activities of the party under his own
name and has participated in several demonstrations against the Iranian regime4 constitutes
an immediate risk of persecution in the Islamic Republic of Iran, given the regime’s
intelligence activities.5 While it is impossible to prove that the Iranian authorities know about
the complainant’s activities, the surveillance, in combination with the visibility of the
complainant’s activities and the widespread information concerning them, makes it highly
likely that the Iranian authorities have such knowledge.
4 The complainant provided to the Committee screen captures from www.youtube.com.
5 In an article published on 16 June 2018 in Dagens Nyheter, the head of the Security Service of
Sweden indicated that the Islamic Republic of Iran was one of the countries in the world that were the
most active with intelligence surveillance in Sweden, see www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/sapochefen-
ryssland-kina-iran-mest-aktiva-har/.
CAT/C/83/D/1078/2021
GE.25-20934
5
3.3
The complainant contests the denial of his application for suspension of enforcement
of the deportation order. He asserts that, given the presence of CCTV cameras at the Embassy
of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the third country, the embassy would have recordings of
him. He claims that, although his application for a new examination based on his presence at
the embassy was denied, he has not been provided with an assessment of the merits regarding
those claims.
3.4
The complainant notes that the Committee has confirmed that even opposition on a
lower level is closely watched by the Iranian regime.6 The European Court of Human Rights
also found that not only high-profile activists are detained, but anyone who demonstrates
against the regime may be at risk of being detained and ill-treated or tortured. 7 The
complainant therefore considers that the Swedish asylum authorities failed to make an overall
assessment of the cumulated risks that he would face if returned to the Islamic Republic of
Iran.
3.5
The complainant invokes a risk for having left his country illegally. He notes that the
Committee has already found that there are risks related to leaving the Islamic Republic of
Iran illegally and unsuccessfully applying for asylum abroad, especially in combination with
belonging to a vulnerable ethnic group.8
State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
In its observations of 21 February 2022, the State Party challenged the admissibility
of the complaint, arguing that it was manifestly unfounded because it failed to rise to the
minimum level of substantiation required for the purposes of admissibility.
4.2
On the merits, while not wishing to underestimate the concerns that may legitimately
be expressed regarding the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the State
Party recalls that the situation in the country does not in itself suffice to establish that the
complainant’s deportation would be contrary to article 3 of the Convention. It emphasizes
that the Swedish Migration Agency made an assessment of all the new circumstances in the
complainant’s submission for impediments to the enforcement of the deportation order. The
refusal to grant a new examination was thereafter appealed and reviewed by the Migration
Court of Appeal. During those proceedings, the migration authorities assessed the new
evidence provided by the complainant.
4.3
As to the complainant’s allegation that the Swedish migration authorities failed to
make a cumulative assessment of his individual risk of facing persecution in the Islamic
Republic of Iran based on his belonging to the Baluchi ethnic group and the Sunni Muslim
minority, it is clear from the decision of the Swedish Migration Agency of 2 August 2018
that an assessment was made taking into account the complainant’s belonging to the Baluchi
ethnic group. The State Party notes that the complainant has no official or leading position
within the Iranian opposition. His political activity online is limited to his own social media
accounts, and there is nothing to suggest that the material has been distributed to a wider
circle or that it has come to the attention of the Iranian authorities. Accordingly, the
complainant cannot be considered to have been involved in extensive political and human
rights activities such that they would expose him to persecution or serious harm amounting
to a breach of the Convention, if he is returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran.
4.4
In its observations of 7 July 2025 with respect to the second asylum application, the
State Party noted that all the evidence submitted by the complainant had been duly considered
in the migration authorities’ assessment and examined in the light of relevant and up-to-date
country of origin information. It holds that there is no reason to conclude that the domestic
rulings were inadequate or that the outcome of the domestic proceedings was in any way
arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.
6 Azizi v. Switzerland (CAT/C/53/D/492/2012), para. 8.6.
7 European Court of Human Rights, S.F. and others v. Sweden, Application No. 52077/10, Judgment,
15 May 2012, para. 63.
8 X v. Switzerland (CAT/C/53/D/470/2011), paras. 7.7 and 7.8.
CAT/C/83/D/1078/2021
6
GE.25-20934
Complainant’s comments on the State Party’s observations on admissibility and
the merits
5.1
On 20 December 2022, the complainant submitted comments on the State Party’s
observations, arguing that the migration authorities had failed to make a cumulative
assessment of his multiple risk factors. While they considered that solely belonging to a
vulnerable minority group in the Islamic Republic of Iran was not by itself sufficient grounds
for protection, they had not considered his belonging to the Baluchi ethnic group jointly with
all circumstances in an overall risk assessment. He refers to reports of the treatment of
Baluchi protesters by the security forces in the Islamic Republic of Iran.9
5.2
While the complainant accepts that the reported impediments to enforcement were
examined, he submits that it was not an examination of the merits, which would have required
a new examination. He insists that, given the Iranian regime’s monitoring of the Internet
activities of persons critical of the regime, including members of the diaspora, there is a
considerable likelihood that the regime has knowledge of his activities and opinions.
5.3
In a submission dated 2 May 2025, the complainant insisted that his political activities
for increased rights, freedoms and independence for the Baluchi people and his activities on
social media had very likely come or would come to the attention of the Iranian authorities if
he was returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
Consideration of admissibility
6.1
Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must
decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has
ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same
matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international
investigation or settlement.
6.2
In accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, the Committee shall not
consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual
has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that, in the present case,
the State Party has not challenged the admissibility of the complaint on those grounds.
Accordingly, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by article 22 (5) (b) from
examining the communication.
6.3
The Committee notes that the State Party challenges the admissibility of the
complainant’s claims under article 3 as being manifestly unfounded, given that the
complainant has not substantiated the existence of substantial grounds for believing that he
would face a foreseeable, personal, present and real risk of torture if returned to the Islamic
Republic of Iran. The Committee considers, however, that the complainant has sufficiently
substantiated his claims for the purposes of admissibility, on the basis of article 3 of the
Convention, regarding his risk of being subjected to torture and ill-treatment if he is returned
to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Accordingly, it declares the communication admissible and
proceeds with its consideration of the merits.
Consideration of the merits
7.1
The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information
made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention.
7.2
In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the return of the
complainant to the Islamic Republic of Iran would constitute a violation of the State Party’s
obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return a person to another State
where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being
subjected to torture.
9 Amnesty International, “Iran: urgent international action needed to stop mass killings of Baluchi
protesters”, 10 November 2022.
CAT/C/83/D/1078/2021
GE.25-20934
7
7.3
The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that
the complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to
the Islamic Republic of Iran. In assessing that risk, the Committee must take into account all
relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3 (2) of the Convention, including the existence
of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the
Committee recalls that the aim of such determination is to establish whether the complainant
would be at a foreseeable, personal, present and real risk of being subjected to torture in the
country to which he would be returned. It follows that the existence of a pattern of gross,
flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute sufficient
reason for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to
torture on return to that country; additional grounds must be adduced to show that the
individual concerned would be at a foreseeable, present, personal and real risk. Conversely,
the absence of a consistent pattern of flagrant violations of human rights does not mean that
a person might not be subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances. Moreover, the
Committee notes that, given that the Islamic Republic of Iran is not a party to the Convention,
in the event of a violation of the complainant’s rights under the Convention in that country,
he would be deprived of the legal option of recourse to the Committee for protection of any
kind.
7.4
The Committee recalls its general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of
article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, according to which the risk of torture
must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. Although the risk does
not have to be shown to be highly probable, the burden of proof generally falls on the
complainant, who must present an arguable case establishing that he or she faces a
foreseeable, present, personal and real risk.10 The Committee also recalls that, in accordance
with the same general comment, it gives considerable weight to findings of fact made by
organs of the State Party concerned, but it is not bound by such findings and instead has the
power, under article 22 (4) of the Convention, to make a free assessment of the information
available to it, taking into account all the circumstances relevant to each case.11
7.5
In the present case, the Committee notes that the complainant maintains that he fears
persecution and ill-treatment, should he be returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran, because
of his ethnicity and political activities, as well as his illegal departure from the country. In
particular, he assumes that his political activity for the Balochistan People’s Party in Sweden,
which is reflected on social media, has very likely attracted the attention of the Iranian
authorities.
7.6
The Committee notes that the State Party’s authorities have not called into question
the submission that the complainant is an active member of the Balochistan People’s Party
in Sweden, that the Iranian intelligence authorities target, in Sweden, asylum-seekers who
belong to minority groups considered by the regime to pose a threat, such as the Baluchi
minority to which the complainant belongs, and that the complainant has published material
on social media that is critical of the Iranian regime. They have however concluded that the
complainant did not produce evidence to demonstrate that his political activities had attracted
the attention of the Iranian authorities. They also assessed the mere fact of being Baluchi not
to post automatically a personal risk.
7.7
The Committee observes that the complainant has provided no evidence to challenge
those specific arguments given by the Swedish authorities. The complainant has thus
submitted no evidence to demonstrate, beyond a simple hypothesis, that he has indeed
attracted the attention of the Iranian authorities for his political activities. The Committee
considers that the complainant has not demonstrated a personal risk to him by virtue of being
Baluchi that would put him in a special situation of risk and in a situation significantly
different to many other Baluchi Iranians.
10 See, for example, A.R. v. Netherlands (CAT/C/31/D/203/2002), para. 7.3; and Dadar v. Canada
(CAT/C/35/D/258/2004), para. 8.4. See also general comment No. 4 (2017), para. 38.
11 General comment No. 4 (2017), para. 50.
CAT/C/83/D/1078/2021
8
GE.25-20934
7.8
The Committee notes that the State Party recognizes that legitimate concern can be
expressed regarding the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Nevertheless,
the Committee recalls that the occurrence of human rights violations in the complainant’s
country of origin is not, in itself, sufficient for it to conclude that a complainant is personally
at risk of being tortured.12 The Committee notes that the complainant had ample opportunity
to provide supporting evidence and more details about his claims to the Swedish authorities,
orally and in writing, over the course of two sets of asylum proceedings. However, the
evidence provided by the complainant fails to sufficiently substantiate his claim and does not
make it possible to conclude that his involvement in political activities in Sweden or his
belonging to the Baluchi minority could put him at risk of being subjected to torture or
inhuman or degrading treatment upon his return to the Islamic Republic of Iran.
7.9
In the light of the above considerations, and on the basis of all the information
submitted to it by the complainant and the State Party, including on the general situation of
human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Committee considers that, in the present
case, the information on file does not allow it to conclude that the complainant’s return to the
Islamic Republic of Iran would expose him to a foreseeable, personal, present and real risk
of being subjected to torture.
8.
The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the
deportation of the complainant to the Islamic Republic of Iran would not constitute a violation
by the State Party of article 3 of the Convention.
12 See, for example, H.R.E.S. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/64/D/783/2016), para. 8.14.
CAT/C/83/D/1078/2021
GE.25-20934
9
Annex
Joint opinion of Committee members Todd Buchwald and
Ana Racu (dissenting)
1.
We respectfully dissent from the Committee’s decision. The case raises two points. The
first concerns the burden of proof that the State Party expected the complainant to meet in order
to establish that the Iranian authorities were aware of his political activities. As explained below,
we believe that the burden of proof was, in the circumstances of the present case, unreasonably
high. On the second point, we are concerned that the State Party’s analysis of the complainant’s
situation was overly backward-looking in that it focused solely on whether the Iranian authorities
had become aware of the complainant’s political activities in the past, to the exclusion of whether
they would find out about those activities if the State Party indeed proceeds to return the
complainant to the Islamic Republic of Iran. We believe that these two points are important in
their own right but that they become critically important in the light of the elevated risk that the
complainant in this case faces because of his ethnicity.
2.
On the first point, the particular facts are key. The State Party does not dispute the
complainant’s description of his history of political activities in Sweden,1 nor does it dispute that
Iranian intelligence authorities affirmatively target asylum-seekers belonging to minority groups
considered by the regime to pose a threat,2 that the complainant’s situation would be precarious
if the Iranian authorities know about such activities3 or that the complainant’s Baluchi ethnicity
significantly elevates his risk profile.4
3.
Notwithstanding those unchallenged facts, the State Party countered that the
complainant failed to demonstrate that the Iranian authorities had previously taken notice of
his activities (see para. 2.3 of the Committee’s decision). While not questioning that the
complainant had published material criticizing the Iranian authorities on social media, the
State Party reasoned that the complainant had not established that the Iranian authorities had
noticed or monitored the complainant’s social media accounts (see para. 2.12). Similarly,
while conceding that an interview with the complainant was published on two Instagram
accounts “with relatively large numbers of followers” that published posts “that typically
displeased the Iranian authorities”, and mentioning that the post on which the complainant
appeared had 2,912 likes (see para. 2.13), the State Party contended that the complainant had
not plausibly demonstrated that his political activities in Sweden “had come to the attention”
of the Iranian authorities (see paras. 2.13 and 4.3).
4.
In considering these contentions, it is necessary to consider the burden of proof that a
complainant must shoulder in a case such as this. It is of course axiomatic that the
complainant must ordinarily bear the burden of establishing that he or she faces a risk that is
sufficient to make removal impermissible under article 3 of the Convention. However, as the
Committee’s jurisprudence makes clear, it is also axiomatic that the burden is reversed “when
complainants are in a situation where they cannot elaborate on their case, such as when they
have demonstrated that they have no possibility of obtaining documentation relating to their
allegation of torture”.5
5.
It is therefore necessary to consider the extent to which we are in such a situation here,
and to ask what burden of proof the complainant can reasonably be expected to bear in order
to establish that the Iranian authorities had noticed his political activities. In our judgment,
the answer to that question must take into account the fact that: (a) it is conceded that the
1 See paras. 2.3, 2.10 and 7.6 of the Committee’s decision.
2 See paras. 2.9 and 7.6 of the Committee’s decision.
3 See para. 2.10 of the Committee’s decision, noting that the Swedish Migration Agency did not question
the assertion that the activities that the complainant had undertaken “typically displeased the Iranian
authorities”.
4 See para. 2.9 of the Committee’s decision.
5 General comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of
article 22, para. 38.
CAT/C/83/D/1078/2021
10
GE.25-20934
complainant’s activities would “displease” those intelligence authorities; (b) the Iranian
intelligence authorities are understood to actively target and seek out information about such
people, as opposed simply to passively collecting information that might drift their way;
(c) the relevant information about the complainant’s activities would in fact appear to be
readily obtainable (e.g. through simple Internet searches already undertaken or to be
undertaken in connection with the routine processing of his return to the Islamic Republic of
Iran) if the intelligence activities do seek it out; (d) particularly given the clandestine nature
of intelligence activities, there is no reason to believe that the Iranian intelligence authorities
would reveal, or that it would otherwise be apparent, if they had already been able to collect
such information; and (e) there is a high risk that, if the intelligence authorities have collected
or do collect such information, the results for the complainant would be severe. In light of
these considerations, it is hard to know what further evidence the complainant could
reasonably have been expected to produce that the Iranian authorities had found out about
his activities.
6.
On the second point, we are concerned that the State Party’s analysis was overly
backward-looking. In particular, the reasoning was structured as if the ultimate question was
limited to whether the Iranian authorities had already noticed the complainant’s political
activities. The Committee’s jurisprudence is, however, quite clear that, while evidence about
what has happened in the past is probative, the analysis ultimately is based on the prospects
for what will happen in the future. The Committee routinely explains in its decisions that the
fact that a person has been subjected to torture or other abuse in the past is important, but
only insofar as it sheds light on the question ultimately in issue: whether the person is
sufficiently likely to be subjected to torture in the future.6
7.
Similarly, in a case such as this, the relevant question is not limited to whether the
Iranian authorities have previously taken notice of the complainant’s activities, but must
include consideration of the likelihood that they will uncover them if the complainant is
removed to their territory. Where the complainant’s political activities – even if previously
unnoticed – would almost certainly come to light, for example, through a simple Internet
search conducted as part of the process of his return, that question is crucially important.
8.
All of this of course takes place in a context in which the complainant is a member of
an ethnic group that is reported to be exceedingly vulnerable.7 Against that backdrop, we
believe it is incumbent upon the State Party, before proceeding with any return of the
complainant to the Islamic Republic of Iran, to reconsider the conclusion that the Iranian
authorities are unaware of the complainant’s activities in the light of the burden of proof
considerations described in paragraphs 4 and 5 above and to consider the possibility that –
even if the Iranian authorities had not previously uncovered evidence of the complainant’s
political activities – they are sufficiently likely to do so in the process of the complainant’s
removal to the Islamic Republic of Iran.
6 See, for example, M.F. v. Sweden (CAT/C/41/D/326/2007), para. 7.6.
7 See, for example, A/HRC/55/62, paras. 53, 54, 62, 63, 78 and 84.