The applicant is a lawyer from Iran who, from 2015/2016 to 2019, worked as a volunteer at the Dispute Settlement Council, a lower court that can refer cases to the court. The applicant claimed that she worked on the case of a woman who wanted to divorce her husband after being abused. The case had been referred to the real court and she had an altercation about women's rights with the judge of that case in early 2019. She was then removed from court and a few days later arrested by the security service and detained, interrogated and assaulted for two days. She had to sign statements, after which she was released with a warning. Additionally, she claimed to have written articles with a friend criticising the authorities about a number of political topics, and her friend was later arrested and died in detention. She claims since then her and her mother have received visits of the security services looking for her. The State Secretary has deemed this credible, but not sufficiently serious. The District Court upheld the decision.

On appeal, the applicant pointed to an article which could have led to her identification by the security services through names and details of her detention. The Council ruled that the State Secretary has not properly substantiated that the applicant has not provided insight into the negative interest of the authorities after the arrest of her friend because of her activism. Additionally, the Council ruled that in view of the country of origin information about Iran, on the basis of which the State Secretary has designated persons active for human rights as a risk group, it is likely that the applicant’s problems arose because the discussion with the judge was about women's rights and because of her involvement in political activism. The State Secretary did not therefore provide enough reasons for why the applicant is not regarded as part of an at risk group. The Court considered the applicant’s appeal well founded and quashed the decision of the State Secretary and the District Court.