Message: Abed Azizi v. Switzerland. Message No. 492/2012. The decision was made by the Committee on November 27, 2014.
In 2012, the author was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to Switzerland.
Subject of the message: expulsion to the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Substantive issues: the risk of being subjected to torture upon return to the country of origin.
The Committee's legal position: The Committee must establish whether there are serious grounds to believe that the complainant is personally at risk of being subjected to torture upon his return to the Islamic Republic of Iran. In order to assess such a danger, the Committee must, in accordance with paragraph 2 of article 3 of the Convention, take into account all relevant circumstances, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant and mass violations of human rights. The Committee recalls that the purpose of the assessment is to determine whether the person concerned would personally face a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would be returned. It follows from this that the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a given country is not in itself a sufficient basis for concluding that the person concerned would be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to that country; Additional grounds must exist to establish the existence of a personal threat against the person concerned (See communications No. 426/2010, R.D. v. Switzerland, Decision adopted on November 8, 2013, paragraph 9.2; No. 413/2010, A.A.M. v. Sweden, Decision adopted on May 23, 2012, paragraph 9.3.). Similarly The absence of a consistent pattern of egregious violations of human rights does not mean that the person concerned cannot be considered as a person at risk of being subjected to torture, taking into account the specific circumstances of his case (paragraph 8.3 of the Decision).
The Committee refers to its general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22 (returns and communications), according to which, when assessing the risk of torture, grounds beyond mere speculative assumptions or suspicions should be analyzed. Although the assessment of this risk should not be based on the criterion of a "high degree of probability", the Committee notes that the burden of proof usually rests on the applicant, who must present convincing arguments proving that he faces a "predictable, real and personal" danger (See communications No. 435/2010, G.B.M. v. Sweden, Decision adopted on November 14, 2012, paragraph 7.4; N 463/2011, D.Y. v. Sweden, Decision adopted on May 21, 2013, paragraph 9.4; N 455/2011, S.C.L. v. Australia, Decision adopted on May 2, 2014, paragraph 9.3.). The Committee recalls that, in accordance with its general comment No. 1, it relies heavily on the conclusions on the factual side of the case prepared by the authorities of the State party concerned (See communication No. 356/2008, N.S. v. Switzerland, Decision adopted on 6 May 2010, paragraph 7.3.). Together with However, he does not consider himself bound by such conclusions and proceeds from the fact that, in accordance with paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Convention, he is entitled to freely assess the facts taking into account all the circumstances in each specific case (paragraph 8.4 of the Decision).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case. Referring to their recent legal practice (See communications N 481/2011, K.N., F.V. and S.N. v. Switzerland, Decision adopted on May 19, 2014; N 357/2008, Jahani v. Switzerland, Decision adopted on May 23, 2011; N 381/2009, Faragolla et al. Switzerland, Decision adopted on November 21, 2011), the Committee recalls that there are reports of the use of psychological and physical torture in Iran to extract confessions, indicating the widespread and systematic use of such practices, as well as continuing reports of cases of detention and torture of political opponents. The Committee notes the recent increased trend towards the arrest and conviction of persons exercising their rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association. The Committee is even more concerned in this regard, given the fact that the Islamic Republic of Iran often uses the death penalty and applies it without guarantees of due process in cases involving certain crimes that are not considered the most serious crimes under international law. The State party itself recognizes the existence of such a situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran (paragraph 8.5 of the Decision).
Statement by the Chairman-Rapporteur of the working group on arbitrary detention, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Special Rapporteur Rapporteur on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and the right to association, The Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders (8 August 2014).
The Committee notes that the applicant was an active member of the Swiss branch of the KDPI (Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan.) and Chairman of regional executive committees in a number of cantons, participated in various demonstrations and published articles on the Internet. The State party does not dispute this information. The Committee takes note of the State party's observation that the Iranian authorities turn their attention to prominent figures who may pose a specific threat to the Iranian regime; that the complainant does not pose such a threat; that the activities in which he allegedly participated are typical of many Iranians in exile; that the State party would not recognize the applicant as potentially dangerous to the Iranian regime. The Committee notes that, according to recent reports, lower-level opposition figures are also being closely monitored in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Committee notes the existence of numerous reports on the ongoing persecution of political activists from ethnic minorities, including the recent executions of Kurds, whose convictions were handed down as a result of judicial proceedings that did not comply with the standards of fair trial (paragraph 8.6 of the Decision).
The Committee takes note of the complainant's claim that, because of his conversion to Christianity, he may be persecuted and even sentenced to death for conversion and proselytism. It also takes note of the State party's argument that converting to Christianity abroad would not expose the applicant to the risk of persecution in the Islamic Republic of Iran unless he professed Christianity actively and explicitly. The Committee notes that recent reports indicate that Christians, especially Protestants and converts from Islam to Christianity, are being persecuted in the Islamic Republic of Iran, that hundreds of Christians have been arrested and detained over the past few years, and that many churches, especially Evangelical Protestant chapels, are currently carrying out their activities in an atmosphere of fear. According to the information contained in these reports: (a) Members of religious minorities, including Christians, are detained and subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, as well as prolonged solitary confinement in order to extract confessions from them, often without providing them with access to a lawyer; (b) Most cases against Christians are considered in revolutionary courts as crimes against national security, but some Christians are charged in State criminal courts for displaying religious beliefs, and officials regularly threaten to persecute converted Christians for apostasy; (c) Persecution procedures often do not meet international standards, as access to case materials is limited and the right to protection; and d) the Iranian authorities at the highest level have called informal "house churches" and Evangelical Christians a threat to national security. Reports on the current situation also suggest increased persecution of Protestant Christians, including their detention for participating in the activities of informal house churches, as well as physical and severe psychological violence, including death threats against Christian converts in custody (paragraph 8.7 of the Decision).
Taking into account all these circumstances, including the general human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the personal situation of the applicant, who continues to actively participate in political activities against the Iranian regime abroad, as well as the legal practice of the Committee (See communications No. 339/2008, Amini v. Denmark, Decision adopted on November 15, 2010, para. 9.8; No. 357/2008, Jahani v. Switzerland, note 11, paragraph 9.4; No. 381/2009, Faragolla et al. v. Switzerland, note 11, paragraph 9.6.). The Committee considers that the applicant may well have attracted the attention of the Iranian authorities. The Committee considers that the complainant's conversion to Christianity and his affiliation with Kurdish political activists exacerbate the risk that he will be persecuted if he returns to the Islamic Republic of Iran. In view of these considerations, considered as a whole, the Committee considers that, in the specific circumstances of the present case, there are serious grounds to believe that the complainant would be subjected to torture if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Committee notes that, since the Islamic Republic of Iran is not a party to the Convention, if the applicant's rights under the Convention are violated in that country, he will be deprived of the legal opportunity to apply to the Committee for some kind of protection (paragraph 8.8 of the Decision).
The Committee's conclusion: The Committee against Torture considers that the deportation of the applicant to the Islamic Republic of Iran would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (paragraph 9 of the Decision).