CAT/C/65/D/841/2017 assessment of the information available to it in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, taking into account all the circumstances relevant to each case (ibid., para. 50). 7.5 In the present case, the Committee takes note of the complainant’s argument that, were he expelled to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, he would be considered a traitor for deserting the National Intelligence Agency and, as such, would face the death penalty and/or inhuman and degrading treatment. It also notes that the complainant proclaims to be a member of the Armée de résistance populaire and one of its closest members to Major General Munene. 7.6 The Committee notes that the Swiss authorities did not call into question the complainant’s history with the Agency but did point out that he did not perform sensitive functions there. The Committee also notes the State party’s assessment that: the complainant was not subjected to torture or ill-treatment in his country of origin; he was never politically active in that country and his political activity in Switzerland did not point to his occupying a decision-making position in the Armée de résistance populaire likely to be of concern to the authorities of the Democratic Republic of the Congo; and he failed to demonstrate that the Congolese authorities are aware of his membership in the Armée. The Committee further notes that the complainant failed to demonstrate close ties with Major General Munene other than through his counsel, who is reportedly a relative of the Major General. The Committee observes that, although the complainant has made a number of allegations, he did not clearly or sufficiently establish that he faced a personal, present, foreseeable and real risk of torture if expelled to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 7.7 The Committee recalls that it must ascertain whether the complainant currently runs a risk of being subjected to torture if expelled to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Committee notes that the complainant had ample opportunity to provide supporting evidence and more details about his claims, at the domestic level, to the State Secretariat for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court, but that the evidence provided did not allow the national authorities to conclude that his alleged desertion from the National Intelligence Agency or his participation in political activities in Switzerland could place him at risk of being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment upon his return. Furthermore, the Committee recalls that the existence of human rights violations in the complainant’s country of origin is not, in itself, sufficient for it to conclude that a complainant runs a personal risk of being tortured. On the basis of the information before it, the Committee finds that the complainant has not proven that his political activities are important enough to attract the interest of the authorities of his country of origin or that he is considered a traitor for leaving the Agency and concludes that the information provided does not demonstrate that he would be personally at risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment if he were to return to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 7.8. In the light of the above, the Committee considers that the information submitted by the complainant is insufficient to substantiate his claim that he would face a personal, foreseeable and real risk of torture if he were expelled to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 8. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the expulsion of the complainant to the Democratic Republic of the Congo would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention by the State party. GE.19-01119 9