Sosani v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

hospital where he had been so weak he was on a glucose drip, and that it took six hours, including on a camel, to travel to Kuwait, were implausible. The Tribunal hearing was held by video link between the applicant in Port Hedland and the applicant's adviser, interpreter and the Tribunal member in Sydney. The applicant gave evidence through an interpreter . The applicant's adviser stated that he had requested the Mujahadeen (MKO) in Australia to give a letter of support in respect of the applicant and he would forward this letter when he received it. The Tribunal asked the applicant about his family in Iran. The applicant said that his father has a shop in a bazaar; his mother is a housewife; one of his four brothers works as a technician in the steel industry, one works in a petrochemical company in Isfahan, one works as a welder in a government company, and one works as a mechanic in a government company; his sisters are all housewives. The Tribunal asked the applicant where he lived until he left Iran. The applicant said that he lived with his parents until 1992; his parents still live in this home where he lived until 1992. In 1992 to 1994, the applicant was working for a drilling company in Ahvaz, and he lived in Ahvaz. In 1994, when he returned to his parents' town of Isfahan, he found a job, and he lived separately from his parents, on his own, in a house he rented until he left Iran, though he was close to his parents and visited his parents, 'quite often'. His two younger siblings still live with the applicant's parents. The Tribunal asked the applicant when was his first contact with his parents after he was released from detention. The applicant said that that the first contact he had with home after he was released from detention was when Hamid telephoned Reza. When he arrived in Pakistan he wanted to dial a neighbour's telephone number to contact his parents, but he was not 'successful'. The next day, he arrived in Malaysia and telephoned, on a mobile telephone, the neighbour and spoke to his father. The last time he spoke to his family was two weeks after he was put in detention in Australia, when he spoke to his younger brother through the neighbour's telephone; he told his brother he had arrived safely and told them to be 'careful'. The Tribunal asked whether his family had said anything to him since he left Iran about adverse events like visits from the authorities; the applicant said he and his family 'have been scared to talk about things', and that he had not been told of any adverse incidents. The applicant said he told his brother not to tell anyone he had left Iran. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he was ever a member of any political group; he said he was not a member of any political group but he was a 'supporter' of the Mujahadeen. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he had any activities with the Mujahadeen; the applicant said he had no 'physical activities' but, he said, 'coming to the ideas and ideologies, I have been in touch with my friends and those people who I knew in that regard'. The Tribunal asked him what contact, if any, he had with the Mujahadeen; the applicant said that he spoke to his friends about the 'messages' he received 'on the satellite'. The Tribunal asked the applicant to elaborate. The applicant said because of the ideologies he had, he and a friend, Faramarz, listened to the 'Voice of Mujahadeen' and to the ideas given in the broadcast. They taped from satellite television the speeches about twice a week, and passed N99/30584 232

them to their friends and 'trusted people'. They distributed the tapes to about four people; the applicant distributed the tapes to Jafa and Youness, and Farwarz took two tapes and distributed them to two others, and these people distributed the tapes to others. They did this from 1994 about two months after the applicant returned to Isfahan and at first, lived with Faramarz, and the last time they taped Mujahadeen programmes was a week before the applicant was detained. The Tribunal asked why the applicant had not mentioned this before if it was true; the applicant said he was not asked questions about his political activities before. The Tribunal noted that it had listened to the tape of his Departmental interview and its memory was that he was asked questions about his political activities, but the Tribunal would listen to the tape again before deciding this issue. The Tribunal asked who the applicant talked to about the Mujahadeen ideologies; he said he spoke to Faramarz and Morad, who were not members of the Mujahadeen, but were supporters of the Mujahadeen. Faramarz was in Isfahan and Morad was in Ahvaz; the applicant knew Faramarz and Morad since high school since they lived in the same area as the applicant and attended the same high school; when the applicant left Ahvaz, he maintained contact with Morad by visiting him in Ahvaz. The applicant said that he had talked to Faramarz and Morad about ideas when they were in high school together, but he and they only spoke about the Mujahadeen in 1994 when he and Faramarz started listening to the satellite broadcasts of the Mujahadeen in 1994. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he spoke to other people, apart from Faramarz and Morad, about the Mujahadeen. The applicant also talked to friends whom he knew in the past and to family members, about his 'own ideologies'; he spoke to them about 'problems in the country...the massacres and killings...the crimes in Iran and the letters which Mujahadeen had sent'. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he spoke to people at his work about these matters; he said the only time he spoke about such things was 'when the incident happened' to him and he spoke to them about the killing; before that, he did not talk at work about his political opinion and views, he only talked about things which happened in the country. The Tribunal asked the applicant did he have any other political activities at all; the applicant said he didn't have 'physical activities' but he had 'discussions with friends in Iran' who were sympathetic but not members of the Mujahadeen. He did this since 1992 when he started working in the oil drilling company. He said this was why he had 'problems' in the oil drilling company in Ahvaz. In Ahvaz, his manager wanted him to attend religious demonstrations and he and the applicant 'always argued' about the applicant's resistance to doing this. The Tribunal asked the applicant why he was dismissed from his job in Ahvaz; the applicant said he was 'being forced by the manager to take part' in the activities such as the national demonstration for 'army day' and the manager said people working for the company should take part in these activities, and he did not, and so he was dismissed. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he had read anything about the Mujahadeen; the applicant said that from 1981, when the MKO was 'free in Iran and active', he read 'Samad Behrang', an author who the 'MOK was publishing and selling'; he used to buy these publications from the bookstores which sold them. He also read the free publications of the Mujahadeen which publications he got from his friends. He read about the ideologies and goals of the Mujahadeen, and tried to understand them, and he spoke to Morad about these

ideologies and asked him 'what was happening'. He also read what Morad wrote about the Mujahadeen ideology. He did this for a few months in 1981, until the authorities started arresting Mujahadeen members. When this happened in 1981, the applicant burnt the Mujahadeen publications to avoid being implicated himself. The Tribunal asked the applicant why, if he agreed with the views of the Mujahadeen, he did not join this group. The applicant said that the Mujahadeen has 'political activities in Iran which are not free' and 'it is not easy that easy to approach them and join them' otherwise the authorities would 'have cracked them down completely'. The Tribunal asked the applicant what were his political views. The applicant said he believes in democracy, which he understands to be freedom of speech and freedom of publication and political parties, 'a society ...framed in an ideology of unity'. He said that the ideology of the Mujahadeen 'is to destroy the bloodthirsty regime of Iran which is cruel and tyrant (sic)'. The Tribunal asked the applicant again why he had not mentioned these political activities before the hearing. The applicant said again that he was not questioned about his activities before. He said he told them he had not joined the Mujahadeen and hadn't been given orders by the MKO, but because of their ideas, he and his friends did do these things. The Tribunal reiterated that it did not accept that he had not been asked about his activities in the Departmental interview, and that it found it extraordinary that if his evidence of taping Mujahadeen programmes and distributing them was true, that he would not have mentioned it before the hearing. The applicant said he had said to the Departmental interviewer that he was a supporter of the Mujahadeen and this implied, he assumed, that he understood the ideology of the Mujahadeen. The Tribunal noted that in the Departmental interview, when the applicant was asked about the goal of the Mujahadeen, he said only that the Mujahadeen wanted to topple the current regime which appeared inconsistent with the applicant's detailed evidence at the hearing as to the goal of the Mujahadeen. The applicant said he did not understand what the Tribunal meant; they asked him questions and he answered, and the Tribunal had asked questions differently. The Tribunal asked the applicant why he left Iran. The applicant gave evidence consistent with his statutory declaration as to his stating at work that the killing of Shirazi was good and his being detained the next day. He said he had said the killing of Shirazi by a gun shot in the street was good because Shirazi had targeted the Mojahideen. He said that when he was detained, he was told he was 'an anti revolutionary traitor' because of the things he said at work, and they asked him repeatedly why he supported the killing of Shirazi and who were the friends he 'cooperated' with. He told them he did not belong to any groups and he had no friends in these groups who he cooperated with and he did not know any names. They beat him till he fell on the floor, and then they kicked him. Then a new questioner showed him pamphlets which the questioner said had been found in the applicant's house; the person said to him, 'If you don't have anything to do with these groups, what are these pamphlets we have found in your house'. He also said they had found some photographs in the applicant's house. He said he was detained for about three months and that he had not been detained before.

The Tribunal asked the applicant about the pamphlets he was presented with when he was detained. The applicant said that the pamphlets came from his brother-in-law, and included letters. The applicant said that his brother-in-law used to get the pamphlets from his friends. The pamphlets which were taken from the applicant's home and presented to him when he was detained, were the first the applicant had received from his brother-in-law. The Tribunal asked he applicant why he had not burnt them; the applicant said that he kept them at home because his friends used to 'come over and read them'. The Tribunal asked the applicant about his escape from detention. He said he was taken to hospital because he had stomach and kidney pains because of being beaten and he had low blood pressure. He was taken to hospital on a stretcher and he was given three different drips and he had injections. He said that in the hospital, the nurse introduced himself as the brother of a friend of the applicant's called Reza; the nurse told the applicant that the only thing he could do for the applicant was to show him the emergency exit on the floor below where the applicant was; he described where the emergency was, and he said he would telephone Hamid and tell him to wait at the emergency door of the hospital. The applicant asked the nurse to tell Hamid to contact the applicant's father and tell him of the applicant's situation. Then the nurse left. When the second drip was finished, the doctor and the nurse returned and they took him to the X-ray room to take X-rays of the applicant's stomach, and then took him back to his room. Then night fell, the nurse changed, and the new nurse changed his drip. The applicant said he kept 'sobbing and ...sighing all the time', and he, and the guards, would not have thought he would be able to escape, but he felt better after the drips and injections he had received all day. The applicant was lying in bed thinking it was almost midnight and then the guard who was in his room at the time was paged to answer a telephone call. The applicant took out the drip and although he wearing prison clothes and had bare feet (he was taken to the hospital wearing prison clothes and slippers), he found the emergency exit and left the hospital. The applicant found Hamid and they left the hospital in Hamid's car. The Tribunal noted that surely if he was in hospital, he would have been wearing a hospital gown; the applicant said that he was kept in a special room for prisoners and so he was wearing his prison clothes. The Tribunal asked the applicant what he had meant in his written statement when he said he could not escape from prison because he was handcuffed at all times; the applicant said he had meant that when he was taken to court, he was handcuffed to a guard. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had said in the Departmental interview that Reza's brother changed his drip, whereas in the hearing, he said the new nurse changed his last drip; the applicant said Reza's brother gave him an injection before he finished his shift, and the new nurse changed his drip. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had said in the Departmental interview that the nurse took him for an X-ray, whereas in the hearing, he said the nurse and the doctor took him for an X-ray; the applicant said that he had said in the interview that the nurse, doctor and two guards took him for an X-ray. The Tribunal asked how long each stage of his trip from Iran took; the applicant said he did not have a watch, or 'a book and paper to write down the times' when he left and he did not know how long it took. However, he estimated that the trip from Estafan to Zahedan took about twelve to thirteen hours. The Tribunal noted that the trip from Estafan to Zahedan was

nearly 1000 kilometres and so it appeared that it would take longer than about twelve hours, especially as they were going over mountainous terrain. The applicant said they were in a private car, a 'pretty new' Paykan [which the interpreter said was a type of English Hillman], and this was quicker than a bus. When they got to Zahedan, Hamid told the applicant that he had contacted the applicant's father who told him to spend his own money to get the applicant out of Iran and then the applicant's father would reimburse Hamid later. At Zahedan, Hamid told him that he was going to get two Baluchi men to get the applicant out of Iran. The applicant then changed to Baluchi clothes, which he said were long loose pants and a long loose shirt. The trip from Zahedan to near Iranshar took about two to two and a half hours in the car with the two Baluchi men; then they walked for about 10 to 20 minutes and reached a man with three camels. When they reached the camels, it was night time; they travelled on the camels through the night and stopped in Pakistan when 'it was close to dawn', before the sun rose, the next day. Then they went to a train station; on the way to the train station, the applicant and the Baluchi men went through two checkpoints; the Baluchi men knew people at the checkpoints and paid them, and the applicant and the men passed the checkpoints safely. The applicant said that then they travelled on a train for about 22 to 23 hours to Karachi. The Tribunal noted that in his previous written statement he had said he travelled with the Baluchi men to 'Kuwait' in Pakistan, but the Tribunal could find no evidence of a town called 'Kuwait' in Pakistan, and the places in Pakistan of similar names were between 1000 to 2000 kilometres from Zahaden which would be impossible to ride on a camel in the time given by the applicant. The applicant said 'the same situation happened' in the Departmental interview and he 'was interrupted' and he was only repeating the name of the place as he heard it. The interpreter said the town was commonly misspelt as 'Kuwait, but in fact, it was spelt 'Quetta'; the adviser said that his understanding was that the correct spelling of this town, where he had visited, was 'Kuwitt' . The Tribunal asked the applicant how his father got money to finance the applicant's flight; the applicant said that money was not a problem because his father owned about six or seven shops in the bazaar. The Tribunal noted that there were some copies of documents such as a birth certificate on the Departmental file and asked the applicant how he got these documents; he said he received them by fax after the applicant had contacted a friend, Abbass who lived in Shahin Shahr in Estafan to ask him to ask the applicant's brother to send the applicant documents he needed; the applicant's brother asked a friend to send the documents through a private fax machine. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he could get the originals of these documents; the applicant said this would be difficult. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had offered at the Departmental interview to get clearer copies and asked if he could in fact do so; he said that he could not because his brother is scared to send the documents again. The documents which the applicant submitted were as follows: A birth certificate which stated that the applicant's date of birth was 23 March 1965. A letter, dated 18 April 1999, from '110 Workplace' which the applicant said was his previous work place which said he worked there until 11 April 1999, and he left because 'of some personal problems' and had not returned to work and that work had sent the applicant's wages. The Tribunal noted that the letter from his work place did not mention the applicant being detained; the applicant said

that it did not mention his detention because his detention had nothing to do with his workplace and the letter was only to finalise the matter of his payment. The Tribunal asked the applicant why he had said in the airport interview that Reza and Hamid took him from the hospital but in his later evidence he said only Hamid took him from the hospital; he said that Reza's brother helped him, he did not say Reza helped him. The Tribunal asked the applicant why he had said in the airport interview that in the border town, he moved from house to house recovering before he left Iran, but in his later evidence he said he left Iran straight away; he said he did not say this. The Tribunal noted that nevertheless, there were differences between the evidence recorded in the airport interview and in his later evidence, and asked whether the applicant had any comment on these differences. The applicant said that when he gave the interview at the airport he was very distressed and tired because he had been travelling for two nights. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether there was anything else the applicant wished to say. The applicant said that if he returned to Iran he 'would definitely be executed'. He said that because of his political opinions, and the way he talked about the killing of Shirazi, and the pamphlets which he had which were in his possession and related to the Mujahadeen, and given that he had signed a paper at court which he did not know what it contained, 'it was proof to them' that he was 'a member of Mujahadeen', which he had told he was not, and so he would' definitely be tortured and harmed' . The Tribunal noted that it had not seen material referring to the Mujahideen broadcasting programmes by satellite into Iran; the adviser said it would not be possible to get information from the MKO in Australia as to pamphlets and satellite programmes, but as far as he knew, these did exist. The Tribunal asked that the adviser provide it with information about satellite programmes, and anything else which might be relevant. The Tribunal said it would have to consider whether it was plausible that the applicant, a person with no known previous political activity would be perceived by the authorities as a Mujahideen supporter and detained for three months because he said at work he approved the killing of Shirazi. The Tribunal also queried whether it was plausible that a person who was taken from prison as so sick he needed to be in hospital could travel as the applicant said he had, though it accepted that people who were weak could make great physical efforts in times of need. The Tribunal noted too that the distances which the applicant said he travelled on a camel appeared impossible, though it would check the distances against the new spelling of the previously cited 'Kuwait'. The Tribunal also had to consider whether if the applicant had engaged for a long time in taping and distributing Mujahideen material, it was plausible that he would omit to state this until the hearing. The applicant said he had made two or three written requests to see his previous adviser to change his statement; the Tribunal noted that no such requests were on the Departmental file. The Tribunal asked the applicant why he signed the statement if it was not accurate; the applicant said he was told that the adviser would only change it if he attended the detention centre and he did not attend the detention centre. The Tribunal asked why then did the applicant not tell his new adviser that his previous statement did not reflect his claims accurately; the applicant said he had no information at first about what his new adviser had told the Minister's delegate. The adviser said he had received a 14 page hand-written statement in Persian from the applicant which he

had told his previous adviser; the Tribunal asked whether it mentioned the taping of the satellite programmes; the adviser said it did not mention it in 'a precise way', but there was mention of other things omitted by the previous adviser from the statutory declaration. The Tribunal said it would consider a translation of the applicant's 14 page submission if it was submitted to it; the adviser said this would take a long time to translate the whole statement; the Tribunal said that it would consider translations of relevant excerpts if they were submitted. After the hearing the Tribunal received the following from the adviser:

• A letter, dated 23 December 1999, from the applicant's adviser stating, 'In relation to Mr Sosani, I again approached Mr Massali the head of MKO/NCR support group in Australia and discussed the applicant's claim of being a supporter of MKO. Mr Massali said to me that [a] long time ago another person called Dr Razavi a lecturer of Curtin university and former head of Iranian community in Western Australia talked about Mr Sosani to him. But Dr Razavi died of heart attack couple of months ago and he is unable to comment about Mr Sosani. But Mr Massali said to me that in order for him to provide RRT information concerning the applicant's past affiliation to MKO first he must do certain investigation and searching about the applicant's claims. I said to Mr Massali his report must be ready by ...29 December 1999.'
• A letter, undated, received by the RRT on 30 December 1999, from 'Mr Massali for MKO and NCR support group in Australia', which stated that there was 'no way' for the writer 'or anyone else in PMOI [MKO]' to reject or confirm his MKO activities inside Iran because the MKO in Iran has no contact with MKO offices outside Iran. However, the writer, said, he had spoken to the applicant and 'he answered my questions, in connection to his arrest and interrogation quite sincerely and my understanding is that Mr Gharibvand's story in relation to his arrest and torture appears to be genuine claim (sic). But I cannot comment about other issues he raised.'
• A letter, dated 29 December 1999, from the applicant's adviser stating that the adviser had .perused the applicant's 14 page handwritten statement and he 'couldn't find the words or sentences relating to [the] applicant's affiliation to MKO', though he noted that the applicant had been consistent in this statement in his claims of approving the killing of Sayyad Shirazi 'as a revolutionary act', being arrested by the authorities after talking about the killing by the MKO, and his hospitalisation and subsequent escape from Iran. The adviser also stated that when he asked the applicant why he did not talk about 'his affiliation with MKO in Iran', the applicant stated 'that a person called Mr Ravazi ...advised him not to talk about this issue and leave the issue of MKO activities for the interview. The problem is that few months ago Mr Ravazi died...'. To this letter the adviser attached several newsletters called 'Iran Liberation' published by 'national Council of resistance of Iran' in Britain, which included, inter alia, information about Mojahedin activities in Iran.

FINDINGS AND REASONS THE APPLICANT'S CLAIMS The applicant claimed that he was at risk in Iran because of his political opinion. He stated that when a military leader, Sayyad Shirazi was murdered on 12 Apri11999, he said to his colleagues at work that it was a good thing he was killed, and the day after, he was detained, accused of being part of the MKO (which claimed responsibility for killing Sayyad Shirazi), confronted with MKO pamphlets taken from his home, and mistreated. After three months in detention, his physical condition deteriorated and he was transferred first to the prison hospital and then to a public hospital from where, with the help of friends, he escaped from Iran, via Pakistan and Malaysia, to Australia. At the hearing, he made a new claim, that twice a week, from 1994 to 1999, he and a friend taped television broadcasts from MKO on the friend's satellite, and distributed the tapes to four others who in turn distributed the tapes to their friends. He said he had read MKO publications in 1981 before the MKO were banned, and he read writings of his school friend, Morad, which explained the MKO ideology. CREDIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT'S CLAIMS The Tribunal found the applicant in the hearing to be apparently genuine. As well, the country information indicates that the authorities in Iran detain people, including those they suspect of association with the MKO, for their political opinion. It also indicates that after the assassination of Sayyad Shirazi, the authorities made strong statements against the MKO and its supporters. The applicant could describe in the hearing how Shirazi was killed (though N99/30584 244

presumably anyone present in Iran at the time who was literate would also be aware of the details of this widely publicised event). Further, the Tribunal accepts though satellite dishes were banned by the Iranian authorities in 1995, during the period the applicant claimed he was taping and distributing tapes of MKO satellite television transmissions, the country information above also indicates that the MKO did make regular transmissions from Iraq into Iran. Nevertheless, the Tribunal notes that there are aspects of the applicant's evidence which lead the Tribunal to have reservations about the applicant's credibility. First, the applicant's evidence in his airport interview was different in some matters of substance, such as how long he remained in Iran after his escape from hospital, from his later evidence. However, the applicant said at the hearing that he was tired and stressed at the airport interview, having travelled continuously in a poor physical condition for days since his escape from hospital. The Tribunal accepts this is a reasonable explanation and has placed no importance on the difference between his airport interview and his later evidence. Secondly, the Tribunal finds it highly unusual that the authorities would have taken a person detained as being a suspected member of the MKO to hospital, and implausible that the applicant, even if he was sick, would have been left unguarded and not even handcuffed to the bed and/or locked in the prisoners' room if he was in fact a suspected MKO member who was in detention. Thirdly, the applicant omitted any mention of his taping MKO broadcasts and his previous reading of MKO materials until the hearing. The Tribunal notes that initial omission of claims may indicate fabrication of claims to enhance an applicant's claim to a protection visa, and fabrication of parts of claims may reflect adversely on the applicant's credibility as a whole. The applicant said that he did not state this activity at the Departmental interview because he was not asked about his political activities in the Departmental interview. After re-listening to the tape, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant was not directly asked about his political activities in Iran (though he was certainly given scope to talk about any political activities, such as taping MKO broadcasts, he may have engaged in). In any case, the applicant also said that he was questioned differently in the hearing so had answered differently. The Tribunal finds no fault at all with the Minister's delegate who conducted the Departmental interview - the applicant was asked at length about his claims. Nevertheless, the Tribunal accepts the applicant's point that different questions asked in a different sequence may have elicited different, more detailed, answers from him. Still, he did not mention these political activities in his otherwise detailed statutory declaration and this is harder for the Tribunal to reconcile with these later claims being true. The applicant said that his statutory declaration did not reflect his actual claims and that he had asked, unsuccessfully, to see his previous adviser in order to correct his statement. This may be so, but it does not explain why he did not tell his subsequent adviser that this claim had been omitted, and why his 14-page hand written statement which he faxed to his subsequent adviser did not contain any mention of his taping and distributing MKO broadcasts and/or reading MKO literature. The Tribunal notes that in the adviser's letter, dated 29 December 1999, the adviser said that when he asked the applicant why he did not talk about 'his affiliation with MKO in Iran', the applicant stated 'that a person called Mr Ravazi ...advised him not to talk about this issue and leave the issue of MKO activities for the interview'. The

Tribunal does not find this explanation particularly convincing since the applicant did not mention anything about the MKO tapes in the Departmental interview. The Tribunal therefore has some doubts about the credibility of this claim, and notes too that if this evidence is fabricated, this throws some doubt on the credibility on the applicant's claims as to having been a MKO supporter and/or found to have had MKO pamphlets in his possession. The Tribunal has considered whether, though the applicant did not state this, it is possible that the applicant did not mention his taping and distribution of MKO satellite programmes until asked in detail what he meant by his statement that he supported the MKO and believed in their ideology not because they did not occur, but rather, because this activity was undiscovered by the authorities and unconnected with his detention and subsequent flight from Iran. However, after considering all the evidence, including the applicant's different explanations for omission of this evidence, the importance of this claim (given it surely would have been an important element of the applicant's expression of his political opinion, even if it was undiscovered), and the memorable nature of the activity (given that it involved illegal use of a satellite, plus taping of illegal broadcasts twice weekly for five years, and distributing these illegal tapes to friends who then gave the tapes to other people), the Tribunal does not accept that it is plausible that the applicant would have omitted this claim if it was true. Fourthly, while the applicant was able to expand on the goals of the MKO in the hearing, the Tribunal notes that he was far less able in the Departmental interview (in which he said simply that the MKO wants to bring the Iranian regime down), which could indicate recent reading on the applicant's part to establish, post interview, his credibility as an MKO supporter. Fifthly, the Tribunal notes that the description of the applicant's alleged journey out of Iran appears implausible. The applicant's evidence was that he escaped from hospital in Estahan at about midnight, about one and a half hours later, that is, on the following day at about 1.30am, he went from Estafan, Iran to Zahedan, arriving at Zahedan at about lunchtime the same day, and then from Zahedan to Pakistan took till just before dawn the next day. The Tribunal notes that the applicant's estimates of the length of the journey from Estahan to Zahedan and from Zahedan to Iranshahr were different in the Departmental interview from in the hearing. The Tribunal notes that inconsistency can indicate lack of credibility, but given that the applicant was not wearing a watch at the time and was making estimates, the Tribunal has not placed any importance on these discrepancies. The Tribunal has based its assessment of his claims on the evidence given in the hearing since it was the subject of close questioning by the Tribunal. The distances (according to the Microsoft Encarta World Atlas 1999) which the applicant travelled after leaving hospital are as follows: from Estafan to Zahedan is 944 kilometres; from Zahedan to Iranshahr is 255 kilometres; and from Iranshahr to Quetta is about 700 kilometres. The applicant said that he was so ill in prison that he was taken to hospital, and yet he also said that after about a day in hospital, he managed to travel night and day virtually continuously by car, camel, train and plane to come to Australia. The Tribunal accepts that a person under great imperative may execute otherwise amazing feats of strength, but even putting aside the question of whether he was physically capable of undergoing the journey as he described, there is still the issue of the times the applicant said it took to travel the distances he allegedly covered. The Tribunal accepts that it is possible to

travel 944 kilometres from Estafan to Zahaden in about twelve to thirteen hours in a car, and accepts that the estimate of two to two and a half hours that applicant said it took by car from Zahedan to Iranshahr may be an understandable underestimate, given he did not have a watch and so the time he gave for the journey was only approximately the time taken. However, he also said that he travelled overnight, and arrived before dawn, from near Iranshahr to Quetta by camel, and the Tribunal finds it incredible that one camel could cover the distance of 700 kilometres overnight, that is, in a maximum of about twelve hours. The country information available indicates that camels travel at a normal speed of about five kilometres an hour to, in the case of a racing camel at a gallop, twenty kilometres an hour, and generally cover about 48 kilometres a day: 'Meet The Camel', http ://www.saintsalive.com/general/meetcamel.htm, states that dromedary camels 'troop about ten miles per hour'; http://www.arab.net/camels/welcome.html, accessed by the RRT on 7 January 2000, states, 'Normal 'amble speed' for a walking camel is 5kph/3mph; a working camel will typically cover 40km/25 miles a day. Racing camels can reach 20kph/12mph at the gallop' http://www.infoplease.com/ce5/CEO08693.html, accessed by the RRT on 7 January 2000, states, 'Strong camels usually ...cover about 30 mi (48 km) a day...'. The applicant said he was not sure whether he and the Baluchi men actually travelled to Quetta, because he only knows that this is where the Baluchi men told him they had travelled to on the camel. However, the Tribunal notes that it is clear from his evidence that he was in Pakistan when the camel journey ended, given that he said in his statutory declaration and in the hearing that he changed his clothes from the Baluchi clothes after they stopped travelling by camel, and travelled by car to get a train in Pakistan for Karachi. And so even if he and the Baluchi men travelled by camel 'as the crow flies' not to Quetta, but 'as the crow flies' to the Pakistan border, this still was, according to the Microsoft Encarta World Atlas 1999, over 200 kilometres, which also seems an impossible feat to accomplish on camel overnight, on flat land, let alone land as mountainous as was the terrain necessarily covered by the applicant and his companions, and by healthy people, not someone in a weak physical state, as the applicant allegedly was. After considering the applicant's evidence, the Tribunal finds that his evidence of his journey out of Iran is implausible. Last, the Tribunal notes that the applicant's evidence was that he last spoke to his family two weeks before the hearing, and up to that time, no adverse incidents such as visits from the authorities had been told to him as having occurred to his family, which the Tribunal finds most unusual if the applicant was in fact a person who was detained for three months as an MKO suspect and he had escaped custody ..The Tribunal finds that if the family had in fact been contacted, it is implausible that they would not have told the applicant when he contacted them. On the one hand, the Tribunal is mindful of the need to give applicant the benefit of the doubt. The Tribunal is also mindful of the fact that the applicant has been consistent in his claim as to the reason which provoked his detention and his subsequent alleged flight from Iran. Also, the country information as to Iran indicates that the Iranian authorities do in fact target people suspected of supporting the MKO, and that the authorities were especially vigilant towards the MKO after the MKO assassination of Sayyad Shirazi. The Tribunal is also mindful of the seriousness of applicant's claims, and therefore grave consequences if the Tribunal incorrectly assesses his claim as lacking credibility. Also, the Tribunal has

considered the fact that the applicant appeared to it at the hearing as genuine, and Mr Massali (letter received by the RRT on 30 December 1999) also thought the applicant to be genuine in his claims of detention and torture . On the other hand, the Tribunal notes that it has found above that it is implausible that if the applicant was a MKO suspect in detention, he would have been left unguarded and/or unsecured in hospital, it is implausible that he could have made the journey from lranshahr to Pakistan as he said, it is most unusual that the authorities would not have contacted his family after his alleged escape if in fact he had escaped, and it is implausible that he would have omitted to state before the hearing that he engaged in illegally taping and distribution of tapes, of MKO satellite broadcasts if in fact he had engaged in this activity. After carefully considering the applicant's claims, the Tribunal finds the applicant is not a credible witness, given his fabrication of the claim as to taping satellite broadcasts, and the implausibility of his escape. The Tribunal does not accept any of the applicant's claims as to his political opinion and detention and torture in Iran for his political opinion as genuine, since even the original claim is tainted by the improbability that he, an MKO suspect, would have been taken to hospital and/or not secured while he was in hospital. After considering all the evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of return to Iran, nor that if he returns to Iran, he will face a real chance of persecution for a Convention reason. CONCLUSION Having considered the evidence as a whole, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol. Therefore the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2) of the Act for a protection visa. DECISION The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant a protection visa. N99/30584 248