EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Application No. 32448/96

Korosh Hatami

against

Sweden

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 23 April 1998)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION

(paras. 1-20) 1

A. The application

(paras. 2-4) 1

B. The proceedings

(paras. 5-15) 1

C. The present Report

(paras. 16-20)              2

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

(paras. 21-62)              4

A. The particular circumstances of the case

(paras. 21-55)              4

a. The applicant's family

(paras. 21-28)              4

b. The applicant's situation

(paras. 29-46)              5

c. The applicant's oral statements

(paras. 47-55)              25

B. Relevant domestic law

(paras. 56-62)              27

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

(paras. 63-111) 29

A. Complaint declared admissible

(para. 63) 29

B. Point at issue

(para. 64) 29

C. As regards Article 3 of the Convention

(paras. 65-110) 29

CONCLUSION

(para. 111) 37

APPENDIX: DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE                                                                     ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION              38

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.

A. The application

2. The applicant is an Iranian citizen, born in 1971 and resident at present in Hässelby , Sweden. He was represented before the Commission by Mrs Ewa Lilliesköld , a lawyer practising in Stockholm.

3. The application is directed against Sweden. The respondent Government were represented by Mr Carl Henrik Ehrenkrona of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

4. The case concerns the applicant's impending expulsion from Sweden and possible deportation to Iran. The applicant invokes Article 3 of the Convention.

B. The proceedings

5. The application was introduced on 22 July 1996 and registered on 30 July 1996.

6. On 30 July 1996 the President of the Commission decided to indicate to the respondent Government, in accordance with Rule 36 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, that it was desirable in the interest of the Parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Commission not to deport the applicant to Iran until the Commission had had the opportunity to examine the application. The President decided furthermore to invite the parties to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. The indication under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure was confirmed by the Commission on 12 September 1996 and subsequently prolonged during the Commission's examination of the case.

7. The Government's observations were submitted on 10 October 1996 after two extensions of the time-limit fixed for this purpose.  The applicant replied on 8 November 1996 after one extension of the time-limit.

8. On 23 January 1997 the Commission declared the application admissible.

9. The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent to the parties on 29 January 1997 and they were invited to submit such further information or observations on the merits as they wished.  The Government submitted observations on 6 March 1997.

10. On 17 April 1997 the Commission decided to take oral evidence in respect of the applicant's allegations. It appointed three delegates for this purpose: MM S. Trechsel , G. Jörundsson and L. Loucaides . It notified the parties by letter of 24 April 1997 and proposed a meeting in Stockholm on 12 May 1997 during which the applicant would be heard.

11. The applicant was heard by the delegates of the Commission in Stockholm on 12 May 1997. Before the delegates the Government were  represented by its Agent, assisted by MM H. Gyllenhammar , L. Sjögren and T. Zander . The applicant was represented by his representative and Mr Per Stadig .

12. On 10 July 1997 the parties were invited to present their final observations on the merits of the application, following transmission to the parties of the verbatim record of the applicant's submissions during the meeting in Stockholm.

13. On 19 September 1997 the Commission granted the applicant legal aid for the representation of his case.

14. Further observations and information were submitted by the Government on 27 August, 30 October and 12 November 1997 and 5 March 1998, and by the applicant on 29 August, 21 and 28 October, 6 November and 23 December 1997.

15. After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the case.  In the light of the parties' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.

C. The present Report

16. The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:

MM S. TRECHSEL, President

J.-C. GEUS

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

H. DANELIUS

Mrs G.H. THUNE

MM F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs J. LIDDY

MM L. LOUCAIDES

B. MARXER

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

J. MUCHA

D. ŠVÁBY

G. RESS

A. PERENIČ

C. BÃŽRSAN

P. LORENZEN

K. HERNDL

E. BIELIŪNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

M. VILA AMIGÓ

Mrs M. HION

MM R. NICOLINI

A. ARABADJIEV

17. The text of this Report was adopted on 23 April 1998 by the Commission and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.

18. The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, is:

( i ) to establish the facts, and

(ii) to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under the Convention.

19. The Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application is annexed hereto.

20. The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

A. The particular circumstances of the case

a. The applicant's family

21. The applicant grew up in the town of Borojerd in Iran together with his parents, four brothers and three sisters. His father was employed by the Iranian postal service. He died in 1986. His mother resides in Sweden today, cf. para. 26 below.

22. The applicant's brother A came to Sweden in 1985. He applied for asylum referring, inter alia , to his alleged political activities within a political group called Peykar . According to a police interview of 2 May 1985 A alleged, inter alia , that his political activities consisted in selling political books, writing slogans on walls and distributing leaflets containing anti-government views. On 30 July 1985 A obtained refugee status from the National Immigration Board ( Statens invandrarverk , hereinafter called "the SIV") pursuant to section 3 of the Aliens Act ( utlänningslagen ). He was furthermore granted a permanent residence permit. A lives in Sweden today.

23. The applicant's sister AZ appears to have arrived in Sweden in 1987. She applied for political asylum and during a police interview of 14 August 1987 referred to her activities within the Peykar organisation . She alleged furthermore that she had been arrested, threatened and ill-treated in June 1981 but released after her parents put up 200,000 toman as a sort of security. On 2 December 1987 AZ was granted a permanent residence permit by the SIV. She lives in Sweden today together with her husband, another Iranian citizen who has obtained a permanent residence permit in Sweden as well.

24. The applicant's brother M came to Sweden in 1988. During a police interview on 11 July 1988 he submitted that he was wanted due to the fact that he had not complied with an order to do military service. Furthermore, he submitted that he had sympathised with an organisation called Fedayan and distributed leaflets and papers as well as sent medicine to " Kurdistan ". On 30 August 1988 the SIV decided that M was not a refugee within the meaning of the 1951 Geneva Convention. He was nevertheless granted a permanent residence permit. M arrived in Sweden together with his Iranian wife. No documents have been submitted concerning her. M lives in Sweden today.

25. The applicant's sister MA came to Sweden in 1991. She wanted to visit her children who apparently live there. She furthermore alleged during a police interview of 4 March 1991 that she could not return to Iran because of her and her husband's political activities within the Fedayan organisation . She submitted, inter alia , that she had been employed by the Iranian postal service and had thus been able to send political material without it being censored. It appears that MA lives in Sweden today.

26. The applicant's mother appears to have arrived in Sweden for the first time in 1991. She returned to Iran in 1992 when the applicant was detained in that country. In 1994 she went to Sweden again and applied for a residence and a work permit referring to her children in Sweden. The outcome of the application is unknown to the Commission. It appears that the applicant's mother lives in Sweden today.

27. The applicant has two sisters and a brother in Iran. They are all married and reside in Borojerd . None of them appears to have had problems with the Iranian authorities because of political activities.

28. Finally, the applicant submits that one brother was executed in the Evin prison in 1990 because of political activities. No documentary evidence has been submitted in respect of this member of the applicant's family.

b. The applicant's situation

29. The applicant arrived in Sweden ( Arlanda airport) on 13 June 1993. It is in dispute between the parties whether the applicant arrived via Amsterdam or via Rome. He asked for asylum upon arrival and was interrogated shortly thereafter. A preliminary report ( grundutredning ) concerning his first interrogation was drawn up by a police officer on 14 June 1993. It consisted of a front page bearing the applicant's signature and indicated, inter alia , that the applicant had arrived with flight "AZ" from Rome at 21:30 hours. The report furthermore contained a text in Swedish which reads as follows:

(Translation)

"The applicant has two brothers and two sisters in Sweden. He submits that he has belonged to the Mujahedin since 1985. He says that he was convicted, following a trial, and sentenced to two years' imprisonment for distributing leaflets and being responsible for printing and distribution but not the actual contents. The sentence was served from 6 February 1990 to 11 February 1992 in a prison in Borojerd in Iran.

Following his release he continued with his activities. But since this caused problems with the authorities he decided to go to Sweden.

No health problems according to his own submissions except for a handicap since childhood, his right leg being partly paralysed ."

30. The preliminary interrogation took five to ten minutes. There was no interpreter present but as the applicant cannot read, write or understand Swedish interpretation was arranged over the telephone. The contents of the report were not explained to the applicant but he signed it nevertheless. The same police officer also completed, in English, a "notification of non-admitted passenger" form to be sent to Alitalia . Although the document bears the applicant's signature it has no police authority stamp and appears never to have been acknowledged by Alitalia .

31. The applicant's request for asylum was subsequently transferred to the SIV for further processing. The applicant was requested to submit a complete written report about his situation. This report of 1 July 1993 appears to have been drawn up in Persian and subsequently translated into Swedish. It contained information about the following points:

Personal data;

Family relations;

Education and work;

Military service;

Reasons for applying for asylum;

Other stays abroad;

Particular travel arrangements for the trip to Sweden;

Any other matters.

32. As regards the reasons for applying for asylum and the travel arrangements the report states, inter alia , that the applicant joined the organisation Mujahedin Khalgh as a sympathiser around 1985. After two years he became responsible for a group of four which distributed leaflets and wrote slogans. On 6 February 1990 he was arrested in the street in his home town being in possession of a leaflet related to the Mujahedin . He was taken to prison and interrogated. He remained in the prison for two years and was tortured on several occasions. After his release he continued his activities but when another member of his group was arrested and revealed that the applicant was in charge of the group he fled to Kurdistan and subsequently to Bandar Abbas . With the aid of a smuggler he continued to Dubai from where he left at 00:35 hours with flight KLM 539 for Amsterdam arriving at 07:40 hours in the morning. At 15:45 hours the same day he left Amsterdam for Stockholm with flight KLM 197 arriving in Stockholm on 13 June 1993 at 19:45 in the evening.

33. On 30 December 1993 the SIV interviewed the applicant and subsequently drew up a report which reads as follows:

(Translation)

"1. ID

The applicant has no identity documents at hand. His ID-card and other documents are in Iran. The applicant states that he did not have a legal passport in Iran. He had been issued with an order not to travel. He applied for a passport by paying 300,000 toman and it was this passport he used when he applied for a visa for Sweden. The applicant does not know when he was issued with an order not to travel; this has been in force at least since he left prison 22/11 1370 - 11 February 1992. He could have been ordered not to travel for longer. He got the illegal passport assistance from his contact person G. G was his only contact in the organisation , and also a friend of the applicant.  The illegal passport was issued in the applicant's own name and it had a photograph of the applicant. The applicant himself did not pick up the passport from the passport control. How was it possible for somebody else to pick up someone else's passport? The applicant's passport was not issued by the passport authority. The passport was issued by someone who is not employed by the passport authority but who works with forgery of passport documents. The applicant does not know what validity period is in the passport. A friend arranged the passport at the beginning of the tenth month 1371 = in December/January 1992/1993. The applicant does not know where or from whom G arranged to get the passport.  The applicant was staying in a residence in Sanandaj at the time. The applicant travelled to Kurdistan in the tenth month 1371 = December/January 1992/1993. It was the applicant himself who applied for a visa at the Embassy of Sweden in Teheran. The applicant applied for a visa for Sweden in the eleventh month 1371 = January/February 1993. He stayed in Teheran for one day, he travelled to and from Sanandaj that day..

2. Social Investigation

The applicant was born in Borojerd . He lived there for approximately 21/22 years. This means that the applicant was living there until he went to Sanandaj . The applicant has not stayed outside Borojerd during any longer periods, he has never been abroad before. The applicant has studied for 12 years. He finished his education in 1368/1369 = 1989/1990. He wanted to study at the university, but could not /was not allowed because he had been politically active.

Did they know about your political activities? They have known that the applicant had been politically active but not in a way that would have justified his arrest. He was arrested after graduating from secondary level. The applicant had graduated in the third month of 1368 = May/June 1989. The applicant was arrested on 17/11 1368 = 6 February 1990. The applicant's father died in 1365 = 1986/87. The mother was a house-wife. The mother lives in Borojerd . The mother has visited Sweden for a while. The mother was in Sweden 1370/1371 = 1991/93. The mother lived in Sweden for 1  years, to the middle of 1992. She then returned to Iran. The applicant states that the mother returned to Iran in 1991. The mother is now living in Borojerd . The mother has problems due to her family. Since the applicant left Iran he has not had any contacts with his mother directly, though he has had contact with his mother through brothers and sisters. The applicant does not know how the mother is doing because it cannot be discussed via telephone, due to the fact that the lines are monitored. For the period the applicant has been in Sweden he has not received any information about whether he is wanted in Iran. But because somebody has revealed him there is a risk that he would be imprisoned or killed. One of the applicant's brothers, ..., was executed in 1368/69. The applicant's two sisters, ..., and his brother ... live in Borojerd . They are politically active but their political activity is not known. They are sympathisers and not active in the way the applicant is. His brother and sisters read leaflets which are handed out and communicate this information to others. His brother and sisters are not active in any group, as far as the applicant knows. His brother and sisters, who are still in Iran, have never been imprisoned.

3. Military Service

The applicant has been declared unfit for military service because of his leg which was damaged when he was a child. The applicant had his leg damaged as a child. When he was a baby he was given the wrong injection in the leg, and this damaged the leg. Later on, his leg was broken twice, once as a child and once in prison.

4. Political activity

The applicant has been active in Mujahedin since 1985. The applicant came into contact with the organisation through his friends, due to the fact that he is deeply religious. He was an ordinary sympathiser for two years. This means that he participated in a group and that he was given tasks to be done such as handing out leaflets and writing slogans.

After two years he formed his own group, which he was responsible for. He was the one who kept contacts with 'the higher group's' contact person, G. The applicant was given the task of contacting three persons, ... and forming a group with them. The other three did not know that G was the applicant's contact person; this was kept secret for security reasons. The applicant was responsible for the group during the period 1366-1368. The task of the group was to hand out leaflets and to write slogans. The applicant's task was to keep contact with the higher group. He received information and disseminated information from/to the contact person G and communicated the information from G to the group. He used to meet the contact person in the street, after a meeting-place had been decided. When they met in the city they decided where to meet and where the applicant would receive information to be spread in leaflets. The applicant controlled  the activities of the group, e.g. when and where leaflets should be handed out.  He also had a duplication machine and weapons that he stored according to the orders from the higher group. During the period 1366-1368, the applicant did not hand out many leaflets; he was more concerned with directing the activities of the group. The group of the applicant used to meet in an area called S... I... and they used to meet in a student room, pretending to be students reading and studying together.  The duplication machine was in these premises. They stored the machine under the floor in the kitchen. They mostly met at night and in the evenings, to avoid attention. They came to the room as if they were living there. They met in the student room almost every day. They used to leave/give information at these meetings and duplicate leaflets and agree where to hand them out. The applicant received hand-written messages which were then duplicated in a suitable size. They received information to be disseminated as leaflets on an irregular basis, sometimes every second week, sometimes less often, sometimes more often. During this period the applicant always received a leaflet or a hand-written page from G and he then duplicated it. The number of leaflets duplicated varied depending on what area to cover; and it varied between 50 and 100.

The applicant had two weapons that he stored on the same premises, but the others did not know about these weapons.

The weapons were put in a wooden box and buried in the yard.

What were your intentions with these weapons?  They were to be used in case of emergency, if they were attacked.

But if the weapons were buried, you did not have any ability to defend yourselves in an attack? They were meant to be used either in an attack or if they were attacked. The applicant never had any need to use these weapons.

After being released from prison he continued his activities more or less as before. He led the same group after his release. The applicant was the only one in the group who was arrested in 1368.

Apart from this occasion the applicant has never been arrested.

5. Arrest, imprisonment, convictions

The applicant was arrested on 17/11 1368 = 6 February 1990 in Bahar street, while waiting for G. The applicant had a leaflet in his pocket when he was arrested. He was arrested by Sepah . G never came to the meeting-point because the applicant was 10 minutes early. When the applicant was walking down the street he was arrested and transported in a regular car. They arrested him because they suspected that he was politically active. The applicant did not use to carry leaflets in his pockets; this was an exception. On this occasion he was about to hand the leaflet to a specific person whom he knew used to read his leaflets. The applicant does not remember what was printed in the leaflet. Sometimes it was about people's problems with expensive food, unemployment, etc. Sometimes it listed who had been arrested, and what the government did to the people.

He was brought to Nedamatgah markazi , Borojerd , Lorostn , which translates into the 'central place of regret'. This is a prison with different wards. They brought him to the Validat ward, a ward for interrogation, to get a confession. The applicant stayed in this ward for approximately three months. At night the applicant was kept in an isolation-cell and during the daytime he was interrogated every day.  The applicant says now that he was interrogated on five occasions during these three months. After these three months he was transferred to ward 1, the special ward for political prisoners. Apart from being interrogated five times, he was tortured every day. The applicant states today that both eyebrows were broken and he points primarily at his right eyebrow.  This is because the applicant tried to protect his face when he was handcuffed and lying down on his back when they kicked and hit him.

The applicant's neck was torn because his entire body was tied so tightly that he could not move and two chairs were put on top of each other and he was hanging on the top chair from his chin until his body became stiff. Also his head was tied with a rope until it was impossible to move. In the end all muscles wither and one is forced to stand all night, hanging with one's head against the back of the chair. Then they come and pull one's head across, and because the neck is tied with a rope, the skin on the neck is torn.

The leg was broken by chicken grilling. They tied the person between two pipes and then they would kick and beat the person and in this process the applicant's leg was broken.

The psychological torture consisted of mock executions, and he was forced to watch when others were tortured.

They sometimes used electricity on his fingertips.

The applicant was never prosecuted in court. The applicant was prohibited from receiving visitors throughout his imprisonment.

The applicant was released after 2 years on 22/11 1371 = 2 February 1992. He did not admit anything and they had no evidence against the applicant. He was notified that he was about to be released a couple of days before his release. The family of the applicant were not forced to pay bail. Bail is only applicable if evidence is found. The applicant states that they have not found any evidence against him.

But you had a leaflet in your pocket when you were arrested? It is different to have a leaflet in one's possession and to hand it out. In prison, the applicant had admitted that he had read the leaflet, but not that he had handed it out or manufactured it.

After the applicant had been released he was ordered not to travel. He was also ordered to report to the police. The applicant was to report once a month. The applicant continued to report all the time he was staying in Borojerd . The applicant is 100% sure that he was under surveillance by persons who were spying on him, for the government. All those who are released because of political activity are checked this way.

The applicant's contact person contacted him approximately 2 to 3 months later and said that he was to resume contacts with his old group. As the applicant was aware that he was under surveillance, he worked more carefully. The difference was that he met G secretly. This or that day, at this or that time you should be in that house, G said, and the applicant did as G instructed him.  They did not walk together as they used to.

The applicant met his group members in the student room, as before, but it was the applicant who decided when to meet. They continued to duplicate leaflets with the student room as base, as before.

If someone was keeping an eye on you, did they not notice  that you often went to the student room and that you met there and that your group members left with leaflets? The applicant states that he was very careful and he did check that nobody was following him when he was on his way to different meetings. He states that the surveillance did not mean that someone was employed to keep him under constant surveillance, rather that you were not as free as ordinary citizens. Most often he went to the student room at night, to avoid attention.

6. Reasons for asylum.

The applicant travelled from Borojerd to Teheran in month 10 1371 = 22 December 1992/20 January 1993 because G had told him to go there to receive general information about the organisation . They held larger meetings outside the city, approximately one every six months. The applicant was to stay in Teheran for two days in conjunction with this meeting.

The applicant's friend P was arrested while handing out leaflets in the city of Borojerd . The applicant was informed about this the second day in Teheran. At this point he did not know that P had revealed, under torture, that the applicant was the leader of the group and their meeting place. G told the applicant to stay in Teheran for some days to find out if P had revealed him or not. It was G who told the applicant that P had been arrested, and the applicant does not know how G came to know this. After a couple of days G approached the applicant and told him that P had revealed everybody, the meeting place and the duplication machine. P had said that they also had weapons but that the only one who knew this was the person responsible.

Earlier you said that group members did not know that the applicant had weapons? They knew that the applicant had weapons but not where they were hidden. Sepah dug up the yard and found the weapons. The applicant was informed that the group had been revealed and evidence found about a week later.

How did G get this information? The applicant states that he does not know, as he did not have contacts with anyone else but G.

P did not know that the applicant had gone to Teheran.

The applicant went to Sanandaj with G after staying in Teheran for six days. The applicant did not know when this was; he finds it hard to recall dates.

The applicant stayed in Sanandaj until two days before his departure from Iran. During this period the applicant did visit Teheran once to apply for a visa to Sweden.

He received the false passport from G in Sanandaj . He stayed in Sanandaj approximately five to six months. During this time the applicant stayed at home. He was given food and a place to sleep by a person in Sanandaj .

The applicant is convinced that he is wanted in Borojerd and throughout Iran. He did not have any direct contacts with his mother, only through G. He does not know if his mother has had any problems with the authorities while he was staying in Sanandaj , as they did not say anything. But normally there should be a search warrant for the house and other things happen with the family when a person is wanted.

Was it not stupid to go to Teheran when you were wanted? How would they know that I had travelled to Teheran; furthermore I just had to do it to save my life. The applicant did not have any problems during his stay in Sanandaj as he was staying indoors all the time.

7. Route and passport

The applicant left Sanandaj to Bandar Abbas by car and this journey took two/three days. In the car there was also a woman with children and they appeared as a family, hence they did not raise any suspicions when passing checkpoints.  The applicant used his false ID-card at these checkpoints. This means that the applicant did not experience any problems during the journey as everything was well planned.

From Dubai the applicant travelled by air to Amsterdam and further on to Sweden. He does not know what kind of passport he used. From Dubai he travelled together with a smuggler to Amsterdam.

He intended to use the passport which had been arranged by G in Sanandaj to legally leave Teheran and it was this passport the applicant used when applying for a visa. When he returned from Teheran to Sanandaj , he was informed that he was under an order not to leave the country and therefore he decided to travel via Bandar Abbas - Dubai illegally.

Why did you have to arrange a false passport to apply for a visa before you knew that you were ordered not to leave the country? For the applicant to apply for a real passport, he would have to approach the authorities in his home town or other authority and then they would find out that he is wanted and arrest him on the spot.

The applicant paid 300,000 toman to the person who brought him from Bandar Abbas to Dubai. In Dubai he met another smuggler, who then travelled together with him to Amsterdam.  The first smuggler in Bandar Abbas introduced him to the second smuggler in Dubai.

The applicant and the smuggler flew together from Dubai and they split in Amsterdam. The applicant does not know what kind of passport document he used, he had the passport in his hand only when showing it to the passport officer in Dubai. He thinks the passport was blue.  He had no problems on his outbound journey.

In Amsterdam the applicant received a ticket and a boarding-card from the smuggler and they left each other, and after this the applicant flew to Sweden and applied for asylum at the border.

8. Health status

When the applicant had arrived in Sweden he felt better. The applicant will only feel completely well when his friends are released.

9. Applicant's addition

The applicant showed a newspaper from Mujahedin . It was printed on 15 June 64 = 85-09-06. The applicant received this newspaper from his friends in Sweden.

He wants to announce that there is a lot of injustice in Iran and that something should be done about this.

He asks if we can help poor people that need protection to come here.

The applicant has been sent to the hospital in Linköping at three occasions. He has been subjected to surgery due to his back and leg because of the assault  he was subjected to in prison. He has had two major surgical operations in Sweden.

The applicant should, through his representative, provide medical statements and journals regarding his wounds."

34. Following the above interview the applicant submitted a medical certificate of 14 January 1994 in support of his application. The certificate reads as follows:

(Translation)

"Refugee-Medical Centre 1994-01-14

ward 41

Medical Certificate

710430-0000, H

This patient has been admitted to the Refugee-medical Centre , ward 41 at the University Hospital in Linköping , during September and December -93.

It is an asylum seeking young man from Iran who in his childhood had poliomyelitis and has a remaining, partially paralysed , right leg. This causes, due to shortening of the leg, weakness and bad posture, a limping, unstable walk. The patient states that he has been imprisoned, assaulted and tortured in his home country. During the torture he claims to have fractured his right femur, which has healed during the imprisonment, but added to the deterioration of his already paralysed leg. He has also been subjected to electrical torture of genitalia which has caused changes in the urethra opening. He has had operations in his home country but the disease has recurred and often causes pain and sometimes blood when urinating. He also has sleeping problems and nightmares that relate to procedures of torture.

During his treatment, assessment and specialist evaluations are done. The right leg is regarded as status post poliomyelitis in the childhood with remaining problems as above. There is no indication for an operation in the current phase. His ability to walk can be improved by means of a suitable orthopaedic shoe, which he will be given.

Concerning problems from the changes in urethra, the diagnosed condition is urethra- condyloma and the patient receives a specialised treatment with good result.  A further verification with urethracytoscope is planned in about three months. With regard to torture that the patient claims to have been subjected to in his home country, an X-ray examination of the right leg has been carried out. This shows an image of post poliomyelitis but with skeletal changes in the right femur that probably can be remains of a completely healed fracture.

The patient also has some scars in the face and the throat that could have come from torture. The psychological status 

of the patient is regarded as being quite stable, apart from anxiety and fear for an eventual return to the home country, in case of a rejected asylum application.

In general his physical status shows no signs of remaining wounds due to torture which from a health point of view could result in further damages.

In duty

Sadi Jawed

Assistant chief surgeon"

35. Having received a copy of the above report of 30 December 1993 the applicant submitted certain corrections by letter of 16 February 1994. In particular he pointed out that he was not informed that travel restrictions had been imposed before he applied for a visa to Sweden. Furthermore, he submitted that during the first three months of his detention he was interrogated and tortured almost every day, but that he considered this as being one interrogation. He was subsequently subjected to four additional interrogations.

36. On 13 July 1994 the SIV rejected the applicant's request for asylum. The decision reads as follows:

(Translation)

"REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Application and investigation

(The applicant) travelled to Sweden on 13 June 1993 and applied for asylum here. On 10 February 199[3] he applied for a visa to visit his brothers and sisters who are living in Sweden. The application was rejected on 30 March 1993 with the motivation that the reference person was unknown on the specified address.  As reasons for his asylum application, (the applicant) has stated:

In the preliminary report ( grundutredning (of 14 June 1993)) (the applicant) states as follows:

He has belonged to Mujahedin since 1985. He has been imprisoned from 6 March 1990 to 11 February 1992 in a prison in Borojerd , his home town. He was convicted for handing out leaflets and as being responsible for printing and publishing. After his release, he continued his political activities, but due to the fact that this caused problems with the authorities he decided to leave his home country.

(The applicant) states that he is healthy apart from a disability from his childhood, which has resulted in a paralysed right leg.

In the written declaration (of 1 July 1993) it has been stated:

(The applicant) has since 1985 been a member of Mujahedin . He became responsible for a group in his home town in 1987/88. The task of this group was to hand out leaflets and magazines and to write slogans. He was personally responsible for distribution of information, acceptance of material for printing and weapons as well as co-ordination of the handing out of leaflets and magazines.

(The applicant) was arrested in the street by Sepah on 6 February 1990, suspected of being a sympathiser of the Mujahedin . At the time of his arrest he had one leaflet in his pocket. He was sentenced to imprisonment as a suspected sympathiser of the Mujahedin . While deprived of his liberty, he was tortured both physically and psychologically. Amongst other things, his right leg was broken because of beatings with a baton.

In the oral declaration (of 30 December 1993) it is stated as follows:

(The applicant) was a group leader for a Mujahedin group from 1987/88 until 1989/90. The task of the group was to hand out and publish leaflets and to write slogans. The group held their meetings in a student room. In this room they kept the duplication machine and weapons. (The applicant) used to receive leaflets or a hand-written note from his contact person, and these messages were then duplicated in fifty/one hundred copies and then distributed by the other members of the group.

Regarding the weapons that were stored in the student room, (the applicant) states during the investigation that initially the weapons were stored under the floor in the student room and later that they were out in a box and buried in the garden.

(The applicant) was arrested in the street in Borojerd while waiting for his contact person  to arrive. In his pocket he had a leaflet, which he usually did not have. He was convicted for illegal political activity and then deprived of his liberty until 2 February 1992. While deprived of his liberty he was tortured both physically and psychologically; amongst other things his paralysed leg was broken thereby. During the investigation it has been noted that (the applicant) broke his leg twice as a child. After his release (the applicant) was ordered to report to the police once a month. (The applicant) states that the authorities also had persons spying on him after his release.

After his release (the applicant) continued his political activities in the group. They did meet, as before, in the student room and duplicated and distributed leaflets. Everything was done with more caution than before.

(The applicant) travelled around 1992/1993 to Teheran to partake in a meeting arranged by the Mujahedin . While (the applicant) was in Teheran, he was informed that one of the group members had been arrested while handing out leaflets. After a couple of days he was told by his contact person that the group member had under torture exposed the entire group, the meeting place and thereby the duplication machine and the weapons. Sepah had dug up the entire yard and found these weapons. (The applicant) and the contact person then travelled to Sanandaj where (the applicant) stayed approximately six months.

While staying in Sanandaj , (the applicant) was wanted. He travelled to Teheran, however, to apply for a visa for  Sweden. According to his visa application the passport that was used when applying for the visa was valid from 11 November 1992 to 11 November 1995. (The applicant) states that in connection with his application for a visa he made use of a false passport. This passport was made by a forgery. He could not apply for a real passport as he was ordered not to travel.

During the investigation (the applicant) initially states that he was ordered not to travel, at least from his release in February 1992. Later (the applicant) states that he had planned to use the false passport for legally leaving Iran after getting a visa for Sweden but that, after returning to Sanandaj from Teheran, he came to know that he was ordered not to leave the country.

(The applicant) left Sanandaj in June 1993 and travelled by car to Bandar Abbas . He used a false ID-card during the trip through Iran, hence there were no problems to pass the checkpoints. He then flew from Dubai to Arlanda via Amsterdam. He had assistance from a smuggler all the way to Amsterdam and it was the contact person who had arranged the entire trip. (The applicant) does not know what kind of passport document was used during the trip, he only held the passport in his hand when departing from Dubai.

Together with the written submissions a medical statement from the University Hospital in Linköping certified by the chief surgeon on 14 January 1994 was submitted. In the certificate can be read that (the applicant) has been treated in the hospital during two periods in 1993. It is clear that (the applicant's) right leg  has been paralysed since his childhood, when he became ill with poliomyelitis. It is also clear that (the applicant) has told the chief surgeon that he has been tortured and getting a fracture on the same leg which has resulted in further deterioration. An X-ray examination shows a change in the skeleton that possibly could come from a completely healed fracture. It is also stated by (the applicant) that he had been subjected, inter alia , to electrical torture of his genitalia and that after this he has had problems with urethra- condyloma , a virus disease. It is possible, according to the chief surgeon, that a virus disease like this one can spread via instruments of torture. (The applicant) has been treated for this virus disease both in Iran and in Sweden. The doctor has also noted some scars in the face and neck that could have come from torture. According to the certificate, (the applicant) is regarded as psychologically stable apart from being anxious and afraid of a possible return to his home country. His physical status in general shows no signs of remaining damages from torture that could lead to further deterioration.

The SIV has via the Embassy in Teheran tried to verify whether the passport documents that were used for the visa application were false and was informed that if the Embassy accepts applications by post, the authorities will not see the passport until a visa has been granted and the passport is stamped, hence they cannot answer the question.

Evaluation

In a general evaluation of the circumstances, the SIV does not believe (the applicant's) statement that because of political reasons he risks persecution in his home country, if returned. The SIV does not think that the information given by (the applicant) regarding his political activity is credible, for example the storage of the duplication machine and weapons in the same locality in which they held their meetings, primarily due to the risk of being exposed. Comparing this to the background information that the SIV has about the risks associated with anti-government information in Iran, the SIV finds it unlikely that he would dare to continue his political activity after the alleged deprivation of liberty as he was after this ordered to report (to the authorities) and was under surveillance.

Furthermore, during the investigation (the applicant) has supplied different information for instance regarding the weapons he claims to have stored on behalf of the Mujahedin and regarding the point in time for his order not to travel. The SIV also questions the information about how he was revealed when his friend was arrested. The SIV also questions if it is likely that (the applicant) chooses to travel to Teheran and apply for a visa to Sweden when he is wanted and when the application can also be made by post and even that he chooses, as a wanted person, to leave his home country via South Iran after having stayed in North Iran for six months.

As regards the medical certificate which has been submitted, it does not confirm that the fracture of (the applicant's) leg is an effect of alleged torture. Nor does it support that the urethra condyloma from which (the applicant) is suffering could have occurred as a result of alleged torture.

The SIV notes that (the applicant) has been unable to present the documents he used when going to Sweden. In spite of the explanation given in this respect, his conduct cannot be understood in any other way than as an attempt to conceal facts of significance for making an assessment of his need of protection in Sweden."

37. The applicant appealed against the SIV's decision to the Aliens Appeals Board ( Utlänningsnämnden ) maintaining his request and need for asylum. From November 1994 until April 1995 he was furthermore examined on several occasions by the Centre for Torture and Trauma Victims at the Karolinska Hospital.

38. From the medical evidence the treatment to which the applicant was allegedly subjected is described as follows:

(Translation)

"(The applicant) describes the torture in great detail and with emotion. He was subjected to many methods, one called something like Kapani , with hands angled from up/down and tied back and then hung from the ceiling by the hands and also by pulling arms apart with great pain as result. Another method that he describes in detail is, when he was fixed to two long poles which were attached to a chair that could be propped up or suspended.  The head would be fixed with a sharp wire around the neck, that would cut the skin when the head was moved, and it felt like the throat was about to be cut by knives. The torturers could also move his head passively during the interrogation. The third method was the grilled chicken, where one is left on top of two poles which are placed between two tables or chairs.  At the end of each pole is a handle by which one can be turned around as a chicken being grilled, while being beaten by sticks and wires. Another method was some sort of rubber tube that was tied around the genitals with a weight attached, and then water dropped on it. In addition he was also subjected to electrical torture with clips attached to the fingertips. The current was turned on for some seconds and the entire body was shaking.  On one occasion he was put in a sack with cats, and the sack beaten from the outside until the cats went mad, clawing all around.  Among the more psychological means of torture that he found most awful was: to be woken up in the middle of the night and hosed down with hot or ice cold water. At some occasions subjected to simulated execution. At other occasions being forced to witness other prisoners being tortured. On several occasions threatened by execution and torture of brothers and sisters, etc."

39. Furthermore a number of scars were found in his face, on his throat, arms, back, his right leg, hip and his genitals. It was stated

(Translation)

"- that all scars can emanate from the specified time, but as the scars are healed without any full specification, the time of their origin cannot be stated,

- that changes in the face are associated with violence with a blunt object,

- that changes on the throat can emanate from a deep scratch,

- that changes on the arm and body fully or partly can come from violence with a blunt object,

- that there is good resemblance between the number and location of wounds and their stated origin, and that it can be assumed that he has been subjected to torture according to his own story."

40. As regards his mental state of health the applicant was in summary diagnosed as follows:

(Translation)

"Young refugee from Iran with the diagnose depressive neurosis according to DSM-IV.

Rich DMT, defence constellation supports diagnosis.

The non- alexitymic pattern in the answers to APRQ, according to the diagnostic picture.

The premorbid history of this patient in mind, the depressive condition should be regarded as a result of the traumatic experiences according to the statements.

Reactive depression, post-traumatic state."

41. The final medical evaluation of 3 April 1995 reads as follows:

(Translation)

" Centre for Torture and Trauma Victims

Summary Statement concerning (the applicant)

This patient has been examined by us because of statements about torture/assault in his home country.

He has also stated that he feels extremely bad. He has been examined as follows:

94 11 08 Erik Edston - photography by Solveig Siöcrona

95 01 19 Sten W. Jakobsson

95 02 07 Marcello Ferrada-Noli - additional DMT-test

He has also been tested with Hopkins, Impact of Event Scale + PTSS-10 (SWJ). All three tests provide significant results for PTSD-disease. Below, enclosed; Marcello Ferrada-Noli's statement, journal document, Erik Edston's medico-legal statement including protocol, sketch of wounds and photos.

Through differential diagnostics accidents can be disregarded as well as self-inflicted wounds. The differential diagnostic stands between assault and torture, but the psychiatric and psychological image suggests experience of torture and from that severe psychological and psychiatric consequences.

It is the joint opinion of CTD that from a medical point of view, expulsion to the home country would be wrong, as he cannot be expected to receive the necessary care there.

Which is hereby certified

Stockholm the 3rd of April 1995

Sten W. Jakobsson

Docent, chief surgeon."

42. On 8 May 1996 the Aliens Appeals Board interviewed the applicant and drew up a report which reads as follows:

(Translation)

"(The applicant) started his activities in 1985 when he and a couple of friends became sympathisers of the Mujahedin organisation . The reason why he was attracted to Mujahedin was his interest in religion and the fact that Mujahedin wanted to create a new Islam in Iran. He was active as a sympathiser for two years and received magazines from the organisation and wrote slogans. In 1987 he became responsible for a group and ipso facto he became a member. He was arrested on 6 February 1990 while standing in the street, waiting for a friend. He had a leaflet in his pocket, expressing criticism regarding the government. Before his arrest, he was not suspected, he was arrested just out of bad luck.

The authorities did not know that he was a member of Mujahedin and they suspected that he was a sympathiser . He did not know why he, specifically, was arrested. In Iran, it is quite common for ordinary people to be arrested without any reason. He was arrested by four persons in civilian clothes and transported in a civilian car. He was brought to the central prison in Borojerd in Lahestan . In this prison there is a ward where they try to get people to confess. He was subjected to torture during three months. After this he was transferred to ward 1 in the prison. Ward 1 is the ward for political prisoners. He was imprisoned between 17/11 1368 to 28/11 1370 in Iranian dates, which correspond to February 1990 to February 1992. He was interrogated an additional four times following his time in the torture chamber. He was never convicted, only detained for two years. He has no documents which support that he has been in prison. In the interrogations the authorities wanted to know if he had been handing out leaflets and from whom he did get them or if he just read leaflets. (The applicant) said that he just read them. The reason why he had a leaflet in his pocket at the time of his arrest was that he was about to give it to a friend. Normally he did not use to carry leaflets on his person.

Regarding his political activity (the applicant) says that it was he who decided where and how many leaflets his group should distribute. The leaflets were mostly about the economic and political situation in Iran and information from Mujahedin . He kept in contact with the organisation through a person named G. He usually met G in the street and was then given information. It was G who decided where and when to meet. (The applicant) states that the organisation Mujahedin is appreciated by the Iranian people who are religious and who sympathise with the religious side of the Mujahedin .

Answering the Board's question as to whether he was not too young to be a leader of a group, (the applicant) answers that within Mujahedin there are active persons between 10 and 90 years of age and it is the organisation that determines who should be active.

The leaders of the Mujahedin are well educated and it is the ordinary people who do the work. The reason why (the applicant) became leader of a group despite his young age was that he had been working so well for Mujahedin . (The applicant) states that the reason for his release from prison was that he had not confessed to anything. He was released due to lack of evidence. He was told a couple of days in advance that he was about to be released. During his time in prison he was not allowed to have any visitors. On his release he was ordered to report to the police once a month.

After his release (the applicant) wanted to expose the government's crimes. He also wanted to continue his political activities, because of his faith and his goals. G approached him some months after his release, and acting on G's instructions he contacted his former group members. He does not know how the group had worked during his imprisonment. Nor does he know who had been the contact person of the group while he was in prison. He did not ask the group about this. Perhaps the group elected someone else as leader while he was in prison. But after his release he became leader of the group again. The activity of the group was to write slogans and to hand out leaflets, between 50 and 100 leaflets every second week.

(The applicant) states that he was under surveillance after his release but that G said that there would not be any problems about the group using the same locality as before his arrest. (The applicant) knew who was watching him, because G had told him. Mujahedin's intelligence is powerful. Sometimes when going out he saw the person in civilian clothes who was watching him.

(The applicant) states, after being asked by the Board, that he is not a member of Mujahedin in Sweden, but he partakes in demonstrations here and is recognised as a member of the organisation .

(The applicant) emphasises that he has never said that the weapons that the group were storing were under the floor in the student room; they were buried in the yard. He had received the weapons from G so that the group could defend itself.

(The applicant) travelled to Teheran at the end of December/beginning of January 1993 together with G. When (the applicant) left Borojerd he was under an order to report to the police and not to travel; he travelled using false identity documents, in the name of Mohamad Amiri , which he had received from G. G was about to receive information from Mujahedin in Teheran. (The applicant) himself did not meet anybody in Teheran. After two days in Teheran G said that the group member P had been arrested. Originally the idea was that (the applicant) should stay only two days in Teheran, but after P's arrest G said that he must stay longer. P was probably arrested while handing out leaflets. After six days G stated that P had revealed the activity of the group and everybody's names. The group had been working together for so long that they knew each other by their real names. G did not tell how he had received his information. The others in the group did not know about G. G and (the applicant) travelled from Teheran to Sanandaj by car.

(The applicant) returned to Teheran and visited the Embassy of Sweden. He stated that his situation was critical. The Embassy staff were not interested and he applied for a visa to Sweden. G had arranged a false passport for him from the passport authority. When (the applicant) was informed that he was prohibited from travelling, G told him that the passport was useless and that he could not use it.

When the Board asked if it was not dangerous for (the applicant) to visit the Swedish Embassy in Teheran which is guarded by Iranian guards, if he was wanted by Iranian authorities, (he) states that there is only one or two guards at the Embassy. They would only look at your passport when entering. (The applicant) had planned to apply for asylum at the Embassy, but he only met an Iranian lady there. He told her that his situation was critical and that he wanted to see someone from the Embassy. She said that they did not have time and that he should fill out a form.

After the visit to Teheran,(the applicant) returned to Sanandaj . After some time G arrived and said that it was wrong to go to Teheran as (the applicant) was not allowed to travel. (He) does not know how G knew that he was not allowed to travel. (The applicant) says that he decided to leave Iran when P was imprisoned. (The applicant) stayed for about five months in Sanandaj . He spent the time in Sanandaj mostly indoors in a detached house and he was being taken care of by a man. He did not pay anything himself for his stay in Sanandaj . He travelled together with G to Bandar Abbas , with false documents, and left Bandar Abbas on 7 June 1993 for Dubai.

The boat-owner in Bandar Abbas who took him to Dubai was paid 300,000 toman . In Dubai (the applicant) was sent on to a smuggler named M. He gave (the applicant) a passport and followed him to Amsterdam where he reclaimed the passport and gave (the applicant) a boarding-card so that he could travel to Sweden. The smuggler requested that (the applicant) should destroy his ticket and boarding-card.

(The applicant) has two sisters and two brothers in Sweden. One of the brothers has been active in the organisation Fedayan Kalgh and the other in Peykar . (The applicant's) mother has a residence permit for Sweden, and his father died in 1986. One brother was executed in 1989. He has one brother and two sisters in Iran.

(The applicant) states that he did not want the authorities to know that he travelled to Teheran, but that he did not know if it was prohibited or not. It was G's idea that he should have false identification documents for his journey to Teheran. The purpose of the journey was that G was about to attend a meeting and that he should not return to Borojerd after the meeting. (The applicant) was to come along and receive information about what happened at the meeting.

G took (the applicant's) passport in Sanandaj because of the order not to travel. (He) himself did not know that he was not allowed to travel.

When asked by the Board about (his) health, he answered that he would improve if he had an operation. If he was not operated on, his back would become bent. Currently he had pain in his back and could not walk properly. His wound had originated in his childhood. Later on in life he had two fractures. One in his childhood and one when tortured in prison. He had psychological treatment in Sweden.

(The applicant) handed in information about Mujahedin from Amnesty to the Board.

(The applicant) finally stated that during his time as politically active in Iran, he had been anxious and stressed. He had now been in Sweden for three years and he was still feeling the same stress and anxiety."

43. On 1 July 1996 the Board rejected the appeal and ordered the applicant's expulsion. It gave the following reasons for its decision:

(Translation)

"The Board notes that (the applicant) did not have a passport, nor any other travel document, when arriving in Sweden. If an asylum seeker destroys or in any other way leaves behind the passport document which has been used for the journey here, the conclusion normally is that the applicant is withholding information that would be of the utmost importance for the evaluation of the asylum application. The trust in other information that the applicant provides can then be reduced. The Board is of the opinion that if the applicant has provided a coherent story that in itself is acceptable and which may further be supported by other information in the case, the fact that the applicant has lost the passport document cannot result in a conclusion that the story lacks truth. There is also reason to note that even if what is stated regarding the passport document can raise certain doubts, these doubts should not, with the principles for evaluation of information that is applicable in asylum matters, form the verdict if the applicant in all other matters appears to be credible and his story probable.

From the documents in the case of (the applicant), it can be noted that he applied for a visa to Sweden at the Embassy of Sweden in Teheran on 13 January 1993. From the application for a visa it appears that he has a passport, dated 11 November 1992 and valid until 11 November 1995. (The applicant) states that he received the passport through his contact person and that it was not legally authorised . He has also stated that  he did not know that he was not allowed to travel when he applied for a visa. (The applicant) has stated that after being released from prison he was ordered to report to the police and subject to surveillance by the authorities, and it is therefore the opinion of the Board that it is not credible that he should have applied for a visa with a false passport document; because of the rigorous checks when leaving Iran it is unlikely that (the applicant) would take such a risk, trying to leave Iran with a false passport document. According to the evaluation by the Board, (the applicant) has applied for a visa with a legal passport document, which indicates that he was not subjected to any special interest by the authorities. The Board also questions that (the applicant) should have visited a foreign embassy in Teheran, which is guarded by Iranian police, if he had been wanted.

The Board finds that (the applicant's) information about the reason as to why he was arrested and then imprisoned for two years and subjected to torture, is vague and less probable.

The Board also finds, as stated by the SIV, that there is reason to question (the applicant's) information about his political activity and that after the stated imprisonment he should have been able to continue his political activities despite the fact that he was under surveillance by the authorities.

The statements, etc. from CTD that have been provided in the case show that (the applicant) has healed scars in the face, on his throat, arms, body, right hip and outer genitalia. According to the Board, this does not support the conclusion that (the applicant's) scars and wounds are a result of actions based on his stated anti-government activities in Iran.

In a total evaluation of what (the applicant) has stated and other facts that have been produced in the case, the Board considers that he cannot be regarded as a refugee according to chapter 3 section 2 of the Aliens Act (1989:529).

There is no other reason of a humanitarian or other nature, to grant (the applicant) a residence permit."

44. On 17 December 1997 the applicant lodged a new application with the Aliens Appeals Board. He submitted that the Commission had declared his present application admissible which in his opinion indicated that his story was credible. Furthermore, he submitted two letters from a Swedish section of the Mujahedin supporting his application and referred to his alleged participation in Sweden in demonstrations against Iran in 1997. Finally, he referred to his handicap and to the fact that he had now lived in Sweden for more than four years. he considered this to constitute the basis for granting a residence permit, at least on humanitarian grounds.

45. On 4 March 1998 the Aliens Appeals Board rejected the application. The Board found that his activities in Sweden and his application pending before the Commission did not give reason to believe that he was in need of protection within the meaning of the Aliens Act. Furthermore, the Board considered that it would not, in the circumstances, run counter to humanitarian demands to enforce the decision to expel him from Sweden and, if necessary, deport him to Iran.

46. There are no impediments against enforcing the expulsion order. However, having been informed of the Commission's recommendation under Rule 36 of its Rules of Procedure, the SIV decided on 30 July 1996 to stay the enforcement until further notice. This decision is still valid.

c. The applicant's oral statements

47. A meeting was arranged on 12 May 1997 in Stockholm between the Commission's Delegates, representatives of the respondent Government and the applicant and his representatives. The purpose was to interview the applicant as to particular aspects of his case. Questions were put to him by the Commission's Delegates, the Government and his representatives. The statements made by the applicant on the aspects raised may be summarised as follows:

48. The applicant was a sympathiser or supporter of the Mujahedin for approximately two years. Thereafter a friend of his, G, told him that, together with the three other members of his group, he should print and distribute leaflets and thus establish a small independent group. The political activity was mainly to print the leaflets, the text of which the applicant received through G, and to distribute them. They distributed the leaflets at night in various areas of the city by shoving them under the doors of the houses. The applicant would also place leaflets in the books of classmates while he was still at school. The group received a small printer which was kept under the kitchen floor in the apartment where the group met. The applicant had also received two weapons from the Mujahedin . These weapons were never placed in the apartment but were buried in the yard. The weapons were never used.

49. The applicant was arrested in the street of Borojerd by four persons in civilian clothes while waiting for G. They introduced

themselves as belonging to the Intelligence Department and said they wanted to talk to him. They discovered a Mujahedin leaflet in his pocket.

50. The applicant remained detained for two years. He never took part in any court proceedings and was never convicted or sentenced. While detained he was interrogated five times in total. The first interrogation lasted three months but he did not reveal anything about his connections with the Mujahedin . Subsequently, he was interrogated another four times, each interrogation lasting one day. During the initial three-month interrogation the applicant was ill-treated every day, following which the ill-treatment stopped. Thereafter he was ill-treated when interrogated the remaining four times.

51. Following his release from prison the applicant was ordered to report to the authorities in Borojerd once a month. However, he was not informed at that moment that a travel prohibition had been issued. After some time G contacted him and he resumed his previous function in the group which still consisted of the same four persons.

52. The first time the applicant went to Teheran following his release was at the request of G who also gave him on that occasion a false ID-card for security reasons. While in Teheran he learned from G that a member of his group had been arrested and that he had revealed that the applicant was the leader of the group. Thereafter he went into hiding in the city of Sanandaj where he remained for a total of approximately six months. During his stay in Sanandaj he considered for the first time that he should leave Iran and he received from G a false passport bearing his photo and name. With this passport he went to Teheran for one day and applied for a visa to Sweden at the Swedish Embassy. As to the further details concerning this the applicant submitted as follows:

53. The aim was to go to the Swedish Embassy and apply for political asylum. He was not checked by the police or any other Iranian officials when entering the Embassy. He merely showed the passport to two Iranian persons outside the Embassy. They just looked at the passport. At the Embassy he was told that he could not apply for asylum but only apply for a visa. He handed over the visa application form to two persons outside the Embassy and they completed it. (It was, inter alia , stated in the form that he wanted to visit his brother in Sweden, but that nothing prevented the applicant from returning to Iran.)

54. Having returned to Sanandaj the applicant learned from G that a travel prohibition had been issued against him and that therefore the passport he had received and the visa application were of no use. The passport was therefore destroyed. Thereafter the applicant decided to leave Iran illegally. On his way through Iran the applicant travelled by car using the false ID-card he had received from G when stopped at checkpoints. A smuggler informed him that he would bring him from Dubai to Amsterdam and from there he should go to Sweden. Upon arrival in what he considered to be Amsterdam the applicant stayed in a transit lounge for several hours. Before entering the transit lounge he passed a gate where the police made sporadic passport checks. The applicant had received a false passport from the smuggler but was not checked. Subsequently, the smuggler took the passport and accompanied the applicant to a gate where he received a ticket and/or boarding card.

He was instructed to destroy these papers before arriving in Sweden as the Swedish authorities might otherwise return him to Amsterdam.

55. Upon arrival at Arlanda airport he informed the police that he had come from Amsterdam. He never said that he arrived from Rome or that he had flown with Alitalia . The interview at the airport lasted five to ten minutes. There was no interpreter present but interpretation was done over the telephone. The police officer made a report and the applicant signed it without being informed of its contents. He signed it since he did not want to cause any inconvenience.

B. Relevant domestic law

56. Under chapter 3 section 1 of the Aliens Act an alien may be granted asylum because he is a refugee or, without being a refugee, if he wishes not to return to his home country because of the political situation there and provided he can invoke weighty reasons in support of his wish. The term "refugee" refers to an alien who is staying outside the country of which he is a citizen because he feels a well-founded fear of being persecuted in that country, having regard to his race, nationality, membership of a special social group or his religious or political convictions, and who cannot or does not wish, on account of his fear, to avail himself of his home country's protection (chapter 3 section 2).

57. An alien, as referred to in chapter 3 section 1, is entitled to asylum. Asylum may, however, be refused inter alia if, in the case of an alien falling under chapter 3 section 1 subsection 3, there are special grounds for not granting asylum (chapter 3 section 4). An alien may be refused entry into Sweden if he lacks a visa, residence permit or other permit required for entry, residence or employment in Sweden (chapter 4 section 1 subsection 2). When considering whether to refuse an alien entry or to expel him, it must be examined whether, pursuant to chapter 8 sections 1-4, he can be returned to a particular country or whether there are other special obstacles to the enforcement of such a decision (chapter 4 section 12).

58. An alien who has been refused entry or who is to be expelled may never be conveyed to a country where there is firm reason to believe that he would be in danger of being subjected to capital or corporal punishment or torture, or to a country where he is not protected from being sent to a country where he would be in such danger (chapter 8 section 1).

59. When a refusal of entry or an expulsion order is put into effect, the alien may not be sent to a country where he would risk being persecuted, or to a country where he would not be protected from being sent to a country where he would risk being persecuted (chapter 8 section 2 subsection 1). An alien may, however, be sent to such a country if he cannot be sent to any other country and if he has shown, by committing a particularly serious offence, that public order and safety would be seriously endangered by his being allowed to remain in Sweden. However, this does not apply if the threatened persecution in the receiving State implies danger to his life or is otherwise of a particularly grave nature. Similarly, the alien may be sent to a country referred to in subsection 1 if he has engaged in activities endangering the national security of Sweden and if there is reason to suppose that he would continue to engage in such activities in Sweden and he cannot be sent to any other country (subsection 2).

60. If the enforcement is not subject to any obstacles under, inter alia , chapter 8 sections 1 and 2, an alien who has been refused entry or who is expelled is to be sent to his country of origin or, if possible, to the country from which he came to Sweden. If the decision cannot be put into effect in the manner indicated in subsection 1, or there are other special grounds for doing so, the alien may be sent to some other country instead (chapter 8 section 5).

61. When considering a request for a residence permit lodged by an alien to be expelled according to a decision which has acquired legal force, the SIV (and in certain cases the Government too) may stay execution of that decision. For particular reasons, the SIV may also otherwise stay execution (chapter 8 section 10).

62. If the enforcing authority finds that enforcement cannot be carried out or that further information is needed the authority is to notify the SIV accordingly. In such a case, the SIV may decide on the question of enforcement or take such other measures as are necessary (chapter 8 section 13).

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

A. Complaint declared admissible

63. The Commission has declared admissible the applicant's complaint that his possible expulsion from Sweden and deportation to Iran would expose him to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.

B. Point at issue

64. The issue to be determined is whether an expulsion from Sweden and deportation to Iran would be in violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

C. As regards Article 3 of the Convention

65. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:

"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

66. The applicant complains that his expulsion from Sweden and deportation to Iran would infringe Article 3 of the Convention. He maintains in particular that from his very first interrogation he submitted a trustworthy and coherent statement of facts which he has maintained when he submitted his story to the aliens authorities. The inconsistencies which the Government maintain are present are either due to a wrong translation of the applicant's submissions or to a misinterpretation of what he actually said.

67. The applicant submits that there is no reason to doubt his political activities. The applicant explained his political activities when he was interrogated for the first time and in every interrogation ever since he has maintained his story. The aliens authorities have apparently found it to be of importance whether a particular weapon was hidden in the student accommodation or actually in the garden and maintain that the applicant's story on this point is inconsistent.

68. The applicant maintains however that this is a typical example of how the authorities are searching for inconsistencies when they have no other reason not to believe the applicant. The facts as used by the aliens authorities are merely a misinterpretation by different interpreters and do not contain any inconsistencies as far as the applicant's story is concerned.

69. The applicant further states that during the oral hearing before the Aliens Appeals Board the authorities put questions to the applicant which clearly indicate that the authorities have very little knowledge about the situation in Iran and also the situation within the Mujahedin and its organisation in Iran. On the basis of the above the applicant concludes that nothing has been found by the authorities which could lead to the conclusion that his political activity was not as stated by him.

70. As regards his arrest and detention the applicant considers it undisputed that he was detained for approximately two years and that he was released due to lack of evidence. When the applicant applied for asylum in Sweden he  informed the authorities that he had been detained for two years. He never said, however, that he had been convicted. Any doubts on the part of the authorities in this respect is accordingly due to a misunderstanding by them.

71. The applicant maintains that he has submitted a detailed and trustworthy account of how he was arrested, of the time he spent in prison, the interrogations there and the torture. It would otherwise be very difficult to explain how he received the numerous scars to his body. The Government's insinuations that the applicant has been in prison due to criminal activity and ill-treated for other reasons the applicant considers not only to be an attempt to question his credibility but also an insult to his person.

72. As regards the ill-treatment the applicant maintains that he has submitted proof to the extent possible through medical certificates and the examination by the Centre for Torture and Trauma Survivors. If the Government would want to challenge this they ought to rely on medical expertise. It is unacceptable, however, that those who have examined his case and who have no medical education consider that they are capable of evaluating the medical evidence submitted.

73. The applicant considers that the report from the Centre for Torture and Trauma Survivors clearly indicates that he has been subjected to torture. Thus, the applicant has not only alleged that he has been subjected to torture but he has also offered supporting evidence in this respect.

74. The applicant submits that the reason why he was forced to leave Iran was that one of the members of his group had been arrested. He was informed that this person had revealed under torture details which would be fatal to the applicant and other members of the group. The evidence obtained thereby concerning the applicant's activity within the Mujahedin would lead either to his being in prison for a very long period of time or to his execution.

75. As regards the factual circumstances in connection with his leaving Iran the applicant accepts that is was risky to go to Teheran and apply for a visa at the Swedish Embassy. However, most of those who apply for a visa at the Swedish Embassy do so for non-political reasons and they are not of any interest to the Iranian security police. Furthermore, the applicant maintains that the passport was false as it contained, as accepted by the Government, an address in Teheran. However, the applicant lived all his life in Borojerd and had he applied for a valid passport he would have had to do so at the competent authorities' offices in Borojerd . Thus, also his address there would have been indicated in the passport.

76. When it turned out that the applicant could not use the false passport it appears obvious, in the applicant's opinion, that he could not keep the passport. Had he been arrested with a false passport this would have been even more dangerous.

77. The reason why the applicant decided to leave Iran through the southern part of the country although he stayed at the time in the northern part of Iran is, according to the applicant's submission, that the trip through Turkey requires very good physical condition which the applicant does not have as he is handicapped through polio and the torture he has been subjected to.

78. The Government's allegations that the applicant should have submitted wrongful information about his travel arrangements are new to him. He maintains that he came via Dubai and Amsterdam. He is convinced that he did not come via Rome. The applicant fails to see the reasons why he should have submitted wrong information in that respect and the Government's allegations have not been supported by any evidence that has been shown to the applicant. As an explanation the applicant could only suggest that the smuggler who assisted him gave him wrong information and it is also highly unlikely that an Iranian who only reads Persian and who has never been outside Iran can describe an exact route through Europe.

79. As far as the situation in Iran is concerned the applicant maintains that there can be no doubt that the risk of arbitrary arrest, detention and torture exists in that country. The applicant refers in this respect to the U.S. Department of State Report from March 1996 and to the Amnesty International Report of 1996.

80. Having regard to all of the above the applicant maintains that he has submitted evidence which shows that he worked for the Mujahedin . He has also submitted evidence which shows that his activity has been revealed to the Iranian authorities and that therefore he is wanted in Iran. Thus, if he is returned to that country he will probably be arrested already upon arrival at the airport. Furthermore, the applicant finds it obvious that on the basis of what is known about the situation in Iran he will be subjected to torture. Accordingly it would amount to a violation of Article 3 if the Swedish Government returned him to that country.

81. The Government recall as a point of departure that, according to the case-law of the Convention organs, the Contracting States have the right to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens and that the right to political asylum is not contained in the Convention or its Protocols. The Government acknowledge, however, that an issue may arise under Article 3 of the Convention and that the main point in the circumstances of the present case would be to what extent the information submitted by the applicant is credible and substantiated.

82. The Government point out that in their assessment the Swedish aliens authorities observe the same principles as those employed by the United Nations. Furthermore, the provisions in the Swedish Aliens Act concerning impediments against expulsion stipulate conditions which are very similar to those elaborated by the European Court of Human Rights. Thus, the test made by the Swedish authorities would appear to be similar to the one made by the Commission.

83. For the purposes of the present case the Government contend that the applicant provided false information about his entry to Sweden. They refer to the information in the police report of 14 June 1993 from which it appears that the applicant arrived via Rome on an Alitalia flight and that a notification of a non-admitted passenger was sent to Alitalia . Subsequently, however, the applicant submitted to the 

authorities that he came via Amsterdam. Furthermore, having regard to the passport control system at international airports the Government maintain that the applicant's story about passport checks and transit in Amsterdam appears doubtful.

84. The Government also point out that according to the initial police report the applicant submitted that he had been sentenced, following a trial, to two years' imprisonment. Subsequently, he has maintained, however, that he was held in detention and released after two years due to lack of evidence.

85. It is also unclear from the applicant's submissions who was aware of the weapons the applicant had received from the Mujahedin and where they were stored.

86. As regards the applicant's attempt to obtain a visa the Government consider it doubtful that the applicant would have visited the Swedish Embassy in Teheran if he was wanted by the police. No credibility can, in the Government's view, be attached to the applicant's account of how he left Iran by using false identity papers.

87. As regards the alleged torture the Government consider that the applicant's information lacks credibility. They refer to the fact that no mention thereof was made in the initial police report. Furthermore, they maintain that the treatment the applicant subsequently refers to ought to have caused wounds and scars which are more severe than indicated by the medical evidence which, in addition, does not allow for any firm conclusions about the origin of the applicant's injuries.

88. The Government suggest that it might be that the applicant has been arrested and detained for some time and also that he might have been assaulted while in detention. However, the Government have strong doubts that this was caused by any political activity as claimed by him. His attempt to obtain a visa indicates rather that he wished to visit his brothers in Sweden without his having any difficulties in returning to Iran afterwards.

89. Finally, the Government also question the information the applicant has provided concerning the existence of G who assisted him in so many ways.

90. As regards the situation today the Government submit that the Mujahedin to which the applicant allegedly belongs plays an unimportant role as a resistance organisation and doubt whether this organisation is engaged in any political activity in Iran. Furthermore, the applicant does not appear to have played any important role in the organisation and there is nothing which indicates that the applicant is wanted by the Iranian authorities today.

91. Consequently, the Government consider that there are no substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention if the expulsion order were enforced.

92. The Commission notes that the decisions taken by the Swedish aliens authorities would only lead to a deportation to Iran if the applicant could not go anywhere else. It is not in dispute, however, that the decisions taken would in fact lead to the applicant being deported to Iran. Accordingly, the Commission must consider whether such a deportation would in the circumstances amount to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

93. The Commission recalls that Contracting States have the right, as a matter of well-established international law and subject to their treaty obligations including their obligations under the Convention, to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens. The right to political asylum is not protected in either the Convention or its Protocols. The decision of a Contracting State to expel a person may nevertheless give rise to an issue under Article 3 of the Convention, and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention, where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned faces a real risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the receiving country. In such circumstances Article 3 implies the obligation not to expel the person in question to that country (see, e.g. Eur. Court HR, Chahal v. the United Kingdom judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports 1996-V, p. 1853, paras. 73-74 with further references).

94. The prohibition provided by Article 3 against torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is absolute. Whenever substantial grounds have been shown for believing that an individual would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 if removed to another State, the responsibility of the Contracting State to safeguard him or her against such treatment is engaged in the event of expulsion. In these circumstances the activities of the individual in question, however undesirable or dangerous, cannot be a material consideration (see the above-mentioned Chahal judgment, p. 1855, para. 80).

95. The Convention organs' examination of the existence of a risk of ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 at the relevant time must necessarily be a thorough one in view of the absolute character of this provision and the fact that it enshrines one of the fundamental values of the democratic societies making up the Council of Europe. In determining whether substantial grounds have been shown for believing that a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 exists, the Commission will assess the issue in the light of all the material placed before it and, if necessary, material obtained of its own motion (see, e.g., the above-mentioned Chahal judgment, p. 1859, paras. 96-97).  The assessment of the existence of the risk must be made on the basis of information concerning the conditions prevailing at the time of the Commission's consideration of the case, the historical position being of interest in so far as it may shed light on the present situation and its likely evolution (see the above-mentioned Chahal judgment, p. 1856, para. 86).

96. In the present case the Government have alleged that the applicant's credibility is flawed by contradictions and inconsistencies in his story. They rely on the police report of 14 June 1993 and a notification of a non-admitted passenger to Alitalia to show that the applicant submitted false information about his travel arrangements (cf. paras. 29 and 30 above).

97. It is true that the police report of 14 June 1993 indicates that the applicant arrived via Rome on an Alitalia flight and that the applicant signed this document. However, the Commission recalls that the interview which constituted the basis for this report lasted less than ten minutes with interpretation provided over the telephone. The report, which has been submitted to the Commission, consists of one page and does not explain or set out in any detail the applicant's situation. The contents of the report were not explained to the applicant who could not read the language used. On the other hand the Commission recalls that the applicant has constantly denied ever having said that he arrived via Rome and neither his detailed account of 1 July 1993 nor any of the extensive and detailed documents prepared following the oral hearings before the SIV and the Aliens Appeals Board reveal anything but the fact that the applicant arrived via Amsterdam. In these circumstances the Commission considers that the initial report of 14 June 1993 does not carry any particular weight. Furthermore, the Commission does not find the document submitted by the Government to show that Alitalia was notified of a non-admitted passenger can cast any doubt on the applicant's story. The document does not carry the official authority stamp and does not appear even to have been acknowledged by Alitalia . Nor have the Government submitted any information about the outcome of the alleged notification. Finally, the Commission notes, as to the substance of the disputed issue, that the Swedish aliens authorities never questioned the applicant's arrival via Amsterdam.

98. The Government also consider that the applicant's story about passport controls and transit appears doubtful, having regard to the control mechanisms used at international airports. The Commission does not share these doubts. The applicant has explained that he was provided with a false passport for the trip to Amsterdam where he remained in the transit area. Apparently, as submitted by the applicant, there was a gate-check where police officers made sporadic passport checks but he was not checked. As he did not leave the transit area he only needed a boarding card for the trip to Sweden and he received that from the smuggler to whom he returned the passport. The facts as established by the Commission do not disclose that the applicant ever provided the Swedish authorities with any other information in this respect and objectively they correspond to the information the Commission possesses in respect of passport controls, gate-checks and transit formalities at international airports.

99. The Government also place emphasis on the allegation that the applicant first informed the authorities that he had been convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment whereas he maintained, subsequently, that he was never convicted but detained for two years without trial.

100. The Commission recalls that the information about a two-year sentence appears in the initial police report of 14 June 1993. However, with reference to what the Commission has stated above concerning this report, it cannot play a significant role in establishing the facts of this case. It is true that the SIV in its decision of 13 July 1994 (para. 36 above) states that the applicant in his written declaration of 1 July 1993 as well as in his oral declarations before the SIV submits that he was convicted and sentenced. However, neither the declaration of 1 July 1993 nor the record of the interview of 30 December 1993 to which the SIV refers, and which have been submitted to the Commission, contains such statements. Accordingly, the 

Commission finds it established that the SIV's decision of 13 July 1994 contains incorrect facts on this point, the responsibility for which rests with the Swedish authorities.

101. The same applies to the Government's allegation that the applicant has submitted inconsistent information about the weapons and the duplicating machine he was storing. The Commission finds it established that the applicant maintained consistently that the duplicating machine was hidden in the apartment whereas the weapons were hidden outside in the yard. Accordingly, also on this point the Swedish authorities have based their decisions on an incorrect interpretation of the available facts.

102. As regards the applicant's attempt to obtain a visa from the Swedish Embassy in Teheran the Commission, like the Government, questions the advisability of such a step in the circumstances as described by him. However, the applicant's story does not, in the Commission's view, disclose any inconsistencies and the Commission's investigations have not revealed that the applicant changed on any significant point his story in this respect. In particular the Commission notes that whereas the Government initially maintained that the Embassy was "heavily guarded by the police", something which did not correspond to the applicant's version of the event, they now accept after consulting with the Embassy that there was no police protection or special surveillance of the Embassy at the time the applicant applied for a visa. This also shows that the Aliens Appeals Board in its decision of 1 July 1996 (cf. paras. 42-43 above) relied on incorrect facts for which the applicant bears no responsibility. The Commission agrees, however, that when reading the facts as established by the Swedish authorities as to the applicant's flight from Iran and the use of different passports and ID-cards, his story may appear open to doubt, in particular in respect of the applicant's alleged knowledge of the travel prohibition imposed. The Commission's own examination discloses, however, that the inconsistencies which may have occurred do not relate to the applicant's submissions but rather to the Swedish authorities' inaccurate presentation and interpretation of the case.

103. As regards the ill-treatment to which the applicant was allegedly subjected the Commission recalls that the Aliens Appeals Board considered his submissions vague and that the medical evidence did not support the conclusion that his scars and wounds were the result of actions based on his stated anti-Government activities. The Government point out furthermore that the applicant did not mention this during his first interrogation upon arrival and that no firm conclusions can be drawn from the documents available.

104. Once more the Commission recalls that the initial police interrogation upon arrival lasted less than ten minutes and was carried out under circumstances which can only lead to the conclusion that no reliable information can be deduced therefrom. Furthermore, the documentary evidence presented to the Commission describes, in great detail, the applicant's imprisonment and his treatment. The applicant underwent very thorough medical examinations in Sweden from which it could be concluded that accidents and self-inflicted wounds could be disregarded and that the psychological and psychiatric image suggested the experience of torture rather than assault (cf. para. 34 and paras. 38-41 above). In these circumstances the Commission considers that, by using the only available means, the applicant has convincingly presented documentary evidence in support of his allegations. The Commission thus rejects the Government's suggestion that the wounds and scars were caused otherwise.

105. Finally, the Commission has taken note of the fact that the Government question the information submitted by the applicant concerning G and the various forms of assistance provided by him. However, although these facts cannot be verified further, the Commission finds that the applicant's submissions in respect of G do not disclose any relevant inconsistencies which could put in question the applicant's description of the events.

106. The Commission recalls the Government's assertion that its authorities apply practically the same test as prescribed by the Convention organs when determining whether or not a person can be deported. However, having regard to its above considerations and the decisions taken by the Swedish aliens authorities, the Commission is not satisfied that the test as required by Article 3 of the Convention, and reflected in chapter 8 of the Aliens Act, was applied to the applicant's case. Contrary to the findings of the Swedish authorities the Commission considers that the applicant's political affiliations with the Mujahedin and his activities, his history of detention and ill-treatment, should be taken into account when determining whether he would be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned. The respondent Government have pointed to contradictions and inconsistencies in the applicant's story. The Commission considers, however, that complete accuracy is seldom to be expected by victims of torture. Furthermore, the Commission considers that the inaccuracies which may exist are not due to the applicant's presentation of the facts and do not raise doubts about the general veracity of his claims.

107. The Commission recalls nevertheless that even if the applicant's version of the events is taken into account the Commission must also examine whether, in the situation described by him, the applicant would face a risk of ill-treatment if returned to Iran today. In this respect the Commission notes that the Government "are aware of the serious human rights violations that occur in Iran and the political oppression that exists in the country as reported by the international human rights organisations and which also appear from different human rights reports of many States" and that "in view of the information available to the Government about the treatment in general in Iran of suspected members or sympathisers to the Mujahedin .. [ i ]t is extremely rare that suspected members of the Mujahedin are released".

108. The Commission has also noted the serious human rights situation in Iran as reported, inter alia , to the United Nations Committee on Human Rights by the Committee's Special Representative on 11 February 1997 (Doc. E/CND.4/1997/63) who expresses concern in particular in respect of the high number of executions, instances of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and concludes "that human rights, having been left behind, now require urgent and sustained attention".

109. Finally, the Commission has had regard to the Delegates' assessment of the applicant who appeared before them. His statements were on the whole consistent and credible and his demeanour and comportment were convincing and sincere.

110. In these circumstances, and having assessed all the material before it the Commission is of the opinion that sufficient evidence has been adduced to establish substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would be exposed to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention if returned to Iran.

CONCLUSION

111. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that the applicant's deportation to Iran would, if executed, amount to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

        M. de SALVIA                        S. TRECHSEL

         Secretary                           President

      to the Commission                   of the Commission