CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 23 avril 1998

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s6A5D7EE7 { width:29.33pt; display:inline-block } .sFD1C8E96 { width:16.01pt; display:inline-block } .s70DF58E9 { width:3.3pt; display:inline-block } .sA047E36C { width:24.66pt; display:inline-block } .s893D1BA2 { width:9.98pt; display:inline-block } .s4D28B2E2 { width:24pt; display:inline-block } .s2D8A4020 { width:32.63pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .s275C5FB8 { width:26.67pt; display:inline-block } .s5BA4079A { width:22.66pt; display:inline-block } .sE32B62BB { width:25.96pt; display:inline-block } .s66441246 { width:19.97pt; display:inline-block } .s636F3465 { width:13.3pt; display:inline-block } .s49C574CC { width:7.98pt; display:inline-block } .sB11B45BD { width:19.32pt; display:inline-block } .s3D66DD5D { width:15.98pt; display:inline-block } .s498DF152 { width:9.33pt; display:inline-block } .s2A75809F { width:2.67pt; display:inline-block } .sEA7DAF3 { width:30.64pt; display:inline-block } .sEB86F1CA { width:25.34pt; display:inline-block } .sBF11BE31 { width:22.68pt; display:inline-block } .s8AFB426F { width:32.67pt; display:inline-block } .s4D040A4F { width:9.67pt; display:inline-block } .sB35F0F21 { width:25.29pt; display:inline-block } .s64B1589E { width:19.33pt; display:inline-block } .s76EAD327 { width:12.64pt; display:inline-block }       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. BÎRSAN       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