CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 septembre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }       SECOND SECTION Application no. 52589/13 M.A. against Switzerland lodged on 16 August 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS     The applicant, an Iranian national, applied for asylum in Switzerland in June 2011. He claimed that after the Iranian government elections on 12   June 2009 and until March 2011 he had regularly participated in demonstrations against the regime and had distributed leaflets criticising the government. In 2011 he had received a court summon to appear before the Revolutionary Court in Teheran. Fearing that he would be detained on this occasion, he left Iran. The domestic authorities dismissed the applicant’s request despite of the fact that in the meantime he had received a judgement of the Revolutionary Court in Teheran sentencing him to imprisonment and lashes. The authorities found that the judgement and the court summons had no value of evidence because the applicant had only submitted the copies of them. Furthermore, his statements regarding his asylum grounds contained contradictions which raised serious doubts about the applicant’s story on a whole. Everything indicated that the applicant had made up the story regarding his risk of persecution in Iran. He had therefore failed to proof his status as asylum seeker.   COMPLAINTS   In the event of his expulsion to Iran the applicant fears to be detained and subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention owing to his former political activities in Iran and owing to the judgement of the Revolutionary Court. He states that it was also commonly known that mistreatment and torture are widely-used in Iranian prisons. The applicant adds that he is at particular risk of a treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention because he had left Iran illegally.   QUESTION   “In the light of the applicant’s claims and the documents which have been submitted in particular the judgment of the Revolutionary Court in Teheran against the applicant, would he face a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention if the expulsion order were enforced?”