CAT/C/56/D/586/2014 established, additional grounds must exist showing that the individual concerned would be personally at risk.3 4.9 The State party maintains that, when determining whether the forced return of the complainants to the Russian Federation would constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention, the following considerations are relevant: (a) the general human rights situation in the Russian Federation; and, in particular, (b) the personal risk of the complainants being subjected to torture, following their return there. Furthermore, the State party recalls the Committee’s jurisprudence stating that the burden of proof in cases such as the present one rests with the complainant, who must present an arguable case establishing that he or she runs a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture.4 In addition, the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. Although the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable, it must be personal and present.5 4.10 The State party maintains that, as the Russian Federation is a party to the Convention and to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it is assumed that the Committee is well aware of the general human rights situation in that country, including the current situation in Northern Caucasus. In this regard, the State party therefore finds it sufficient to refer to the information regarding the human rights situation in the Russian Federation that can be found in recent reports.6 While existing reports show that the general level of violence and serious human rights violations in Chechnya, Russian Federation, has decreased in recent years, the State party notes that human rights violations, including disappearances, abuse, torture and killings, are still being reported. For this reason, the State party does not wish to discount the concerns that may legitimately be expressed over the current human rights situation in the Russian Federation and especially in the Northern Caucasus region. However, the current situation in Chechnya, as described in the above-mentioned reports, does not, in itself, suffice to establish that the general situation in the region is such that an expulsion of the complainants would entail a violation of article 3 of the Convention.7 Hence, the State party contends that the expulsion of the complainants to the Russian Federation would only entail a breach of the Convention if they could show that they would be personally at risk of being subjected to treatment 3 4 5 6 7 6 The State party refers to communications No. 150/1999, S.L. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 11 May 2001, para. 6.3, and No. 213/2002, E.J.V.M. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 8.3. The State party refers to communication No. 178/2001, H.O. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 13 November 2001, para. 13, and communication No. 203/2002, A.R. v. the Netherlands, decision of 14 November 2003, para. 7.3. The State party refers to, for example, Committee’s general comment No. 1(1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, paras. 5-7. The State party refers to United States of America, Department of State, Human Rights Report on Russia 2013; Amnesty International, Annual Report 2013 – Russian Federation, Human Rights Watch, World Report 2014: Russia; the Swedish Migration Board, Country Profile – Russian Federation (Landprofil Ryssland), 25 February 2011; Sweden, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Mänskliga rättigheter i Ryska Federationen 2011; Norwegian Country of Origin Information Centre, Temanotat: Tsjetsjenia Sikkerhetssituasjonen, 15 May 2014, and Temanotat Tsjetsjenia: Tsjetsjenske myndigheters reaksjoner mot opprørere og personer som bistår opprørere, 26 October 2012; Danish Refugee Council, Flygtingenaevnets baggrundsmateriale, Landeprofil: Tjetjenien; and European Council on Refugees and Exiles, Guidelines on the Treatment of Chechen Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), Asylum Seekers and Refugees in Europe. The State party refers to, for example, European Court of Human Rights, I v. Sweden, application No. 61204/09, judgement of 5 September 2013, para. 58.