CAT/C/55/D/530/2012 8.11 The Committee also takes note of the complainants’ allegations that they have been summonsed for questioning by the police in Minsk, that the first complainant has been accused of tax evasion in connection to his previous entrepreneurial activities, that the second complainant is currently accused of a serious weapon offence in Belarus and that these accusations against them are actually politically motivated. However, the Committee observes that the summons do not prove that the complainants are accused of crimes in relation to the demonstration of December 2010. The Committee finds that they have not been able to establish that their summonsing is politically motivated. 8.12 The Committee finally notes the State party’s submission that the content of all the documents submitted did not plausibly demonstrate that the complainants would risk torture upon return to Belarus. 8.13 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence whereby the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory, and indicates that it is generally for the complainant to present an arguable case.25 In the light of the considerations above, and on the basis of all the information submitted by the complainants and the State party, including on the general situation of human rights in Belarus, the Committee considers that the complainants have not provided sufficient evidence to enable it to conclude that their deportation to their country of origin would expose them to a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention. 9. Accordingly, the Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the complainants’ return to Belarus would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention by the State party. 25 16 See communications No. 298/2006, C.A.R.M. and others v. Canada, decision adopted on 18 May 2007, para. 8.10; No. 256/2004, M.Z. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 12 May 2006, para. 9.3; No. 214/2002, M.A.K. v. Germany, decision adopted on 12 May 2004, para. 13.5; No. 150/1999, S.L. v. Sweden, para. 6.3; and No. 347/2008, N.B.-M. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 14 November 2011, para. 9.9.