CAT/C/71/D/807/2017 about the complainants’ credibility in view of their behaviour in relation to the presentation of identity documents. 9.7 The Committee recalls that it must ascertain whether the complainants are currently at risk of torture or ill-treatment if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. It notes that the complainants had many opportunities to substantiate and provide more details about their claims before the Federal Office for Migration – now the State Secretariat for Migration – and the Federal Administrative Court, but that the evidence provided did not allow the national authorities to conclude that the humanitarian aid provided by the complainants to the Kurdish communities, their alleged opinions or the detention and ill-treatment to which they were allegedly subjected put them at a current risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment if returned.19 Furthermore, the Committee recalls that the existence of human rights violations in the country of origin does not in itself constitute sufficient grounds for concluding that a complainant is personally at risk of torture. The Committee notes that the complainants dispute in particular the assessment of the facts and evidence by the State party, particularly X’s account of the sexual abuse that she allegedly suffered and the information contained in the two anonymous letters of 10 June and 17 September 2013. 9.8 On the basis of the information available to it, the Committee considers that the complainants have failed to provide evidence that the Iranian authorities would seek them out or that their activities are of sufficient importance to attract the interest of the Iranian authorities at the current time and have not established that the State party’s examination was manifestly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.20 The Committee concludes that the information submitted by the complainants is insufficient to establish that they would personally face a foreseeable and real risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. 10. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the return of the complainants to the Islamic Republic of Iran would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention by the State party. 19 20 10 Y.G. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/65/D/822/2017), para. 7.8. S. v. Sweden (CAT/C/65/D/691/2015), para. 10. GE.21-12363