## Facts

- A.S., an Iranian woman, entered Sweden in 1997 on a previously issued visa to visit her sister-in-law and later sought asylum, claiming she would be harmed if returned to Iran.
- In Iran, A.S. was treated as the widow of a “martyr,” which placed her under religious and social control connected to the Bonyad-e Shahid (Martyrs Foundation).
- A.S. stated that Ayatollah Rahimian, head of the Bonyad-e Shahid, compelled her into a temporary marriage (sighe) and then forced her to provide sexual services; she said she did not live with him.
- A.S. said she later formed a relationship with a Christian man and that they were discovered together by the Pasdaran (Iranian Revolutionary Guards), arrested, and accused of adultery.
- A.S. claimed her partner was sentenced to death and that Rahimian severely beat her; she further claimed Rahimian used his authority to suppress the Pasdaran’s report concerning her alleged adultery.
- A.S. left Iran without incident and traveled to Sweden; after her arrival, she claimed Rahimian contacted her sister-in-law and asserted that A.S. had been sentenced to death for adultery.
- In Swedish asylum proceedings, A.S. produced identity documents and proof of her “martyr’s widow” status and gave oral testimony about the sighe marriage, arrest, beating, and alleged capital conviction.
- Sweden rejected the asylum claim, emphasizing the lack of corroborating evidence (such as medical documentation or arrest/court records) and pointing to the fact that A.S. had been able to exit Iran on her own passport.
- A.S. filed an individual communication with the Committee against Torture, arguing that her forcible return would violate Article 3 of the Convention against Torture.

## Issues

1. Whether Sweden would violate Article 3 of the Convention against Torture by expelling A.S. to Iran because there were substantial grounds for believing she faced a foreseeable, real, and personal risk of torture.
2. Whether A.S.’s account—forced sighe marriage, violence by a powerful religious figure, and alleged prosecution and death sentence for adultery—showed a current, individualized risk connected to state action, consent, or acquiescence.
3. How much weight the Committee should give to Sweden’s assessment of credibility and evidentiary gaps when determining the Article 3 risk.

## Decision

- The Committee concluded that A.S. had not demonstrated substantial grounds for believing she would face a foreseeable, real, and personal risk of torture if returned to Iran.
- The Committee treated the general human-rights situation in Iran as relevant background, but not enough by itself to establish that A.S. personally faced torture on return.
- The Committee placed significant weight on the shortcomings identified by Swedish authorities, including the limited objective support for the claimed arrest, injuries, and alleged conviction.
- The Committee considered it significant that A.S. was able to leave Iran using a valid visa and without reported interference at departure, which weakened the claim of an immediate, active interest in her by Iranian authorities.
- On the record before it, the Committee was not persuaded that Sweden’s decision-making showed arbitrariness or errors so serious that it should depart from the domestic assessment.
- Accordingly, the Committee found that Sweden’s removal of A.S. to Iran would not violate Article 3.

## Legal Principles

- Article 3 forbids removal only where there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture in the receiving state.
- The danger must be foreseeable, real, and personal; general country conditions, even if troubling, do not alone satisfy Article 3.
- The author bears the burden to present a substantiated account showing an individualized risk, assessed in light of credibility, available documentation, and the person’s profile.
- Past ill-treatment and threats can be relevant, but the Committee evaluates whether the risk remains present at the time of removal.
- For Article 3 purposes, the feared harm must fall within the Convention’s torture framework, including involvement of public officials or their consent or acquiescence.
- The Committee generally gives weight to domestic asylum fact-finding and credibility assessments and will not replace them absent clear arbitrariness or a serious failure to assess risk.

## Conclusion

In A.S. v. Sweden, the Committee against Torture held that A.S. did not substantiate a present, individualized risk of torture in Iran linked to her claimed forced sighe marriage and adultery allegations, and therefore Sweden would not breach Article 3 by returning her.


A.S. v. Sweden, Communication No. 149/1999 U.N. Doc. CAT/C/25/D/149/1999 (2001)