CAT/C/57/D/611/2014 8.5 The Committee also notes that, even if it were to accept the claim that the complainant was subjected to torture in the past, the question is whether he remains, at present, at risk of torture in Kazakhstan. 8.6 The Committee also observes that the complainant claims that the State party failed to consider his specific circumstances, including his ethnic and religious background. The complainant further claims that, if returned, he fears that Islamic extremists — who already recruited one of his sons — would target him and would try to recruit his other son. The complainant alleges that the police and the law enforcement in general who mistreated him in the past would do so again if he is returned to Kazakhstan. 8.7 The Committee notes that the complainant merely stated before the State party authorities that he feared being subjected to torture if returned to Kazakhstan, claiming that he had been tortured in the past and that he would be targeted again. The Committee notes, however, that the State party does not challenge the facts as presented by the complainant. The Committee observes that the State party, without questioning the complainant’s account, instead argues that he did not prove that he would be targeted again if returned to Kazakhstan. 8.8 The Committee further observes certain uncontroverted facts, namely, that Kazakhstan has a considerable Russian minority, especially in the northern parts of the country; that the complainant, while born Christian, has admitted to be an atheist; and that the complainant has not shown that he is wanted by the authorities in Kazakhstan, or that he would be targeted by the authorities if returned. Furthermore, the complainant failed to provide any explanations regarding his whereabouts from 2002 to 2012 and whether, during that time, he faced any threats of torture or assault. The Committee notes that certain reports about persecution cited by the communication concern cases of religious activists, whereas the complainant has not shown any public activity for which he could have been targeted. 8.9 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 On the basis of all the information submitted by the parties, including on the general situation of human rights in Kazakhstan, the Committee considers that the complainant has not provided sufficient evidence to enable it to conclude that his expulsion to Kazakhstan would expose him to a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention. 9. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, therefore concludes that the complainant’s expulsion to Kazakhstan would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 25 10 See communications No. 298/2006, C.A.R.M. et al. 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, decision adopted on 11 May 2001, para. 6.3; and No. 347/2008, N.B-M. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 14 November 2011, para. 9.9. GE.16-09780