CAT/C/71/D/913/2019 with the assistance of an interpreter and in the presence of legal counsel, in connection with the complainant’s alleged grounds for protection. 9.10 In the Committee’s opinion, in the present case, the complainants have not discharged that burden of proof. 8 Furthermore, the complainants have not demonstrated that the authorities of the State party that considered the case have failed to conduct a proper investigation. 9.11 In the present communication, the Committee observes that L.H. had not been personally involved in any opposition activity or had any affiliation with opponents of the regime in Ingushetia. There is also not sufficient evidence of her brother’s and husband’s involvement with such opposition groups. It is observed in that respect that, even though in Ingushetia, a woman with a familial connection to the opposition who is forcibly returned to the Russian Federation may be at risk of torture, in the present case L.H. makes reference to a single instance of questioning by the Federal Security Service in relation to her husband’s disappearance. The Committee notes that L.H. has never been either under the threat of arrest or torture or arrested or ill-treated by the authorities. Furthermore, considering the fact that L.H. was summoned to court and declared a missing person, the Committee notes that L.H. did not provide any detailed explanation as to how those facts can prove that she faces a real risk of torture. The Committee observes that the fact that L.H. was able to leave the Russian Federation freely on her own passport without any incident also shows a lack of interest by the State authorities in her whereabouts. In addition, she makes allegations of the harassment of her uncle and the murder of a cousin after her departure from the Russian Federation, without providing evidence. The Committee finds that the other submitted evidence, such as the letter from a human rights defender and the arrest warrant, are not plausible enough to prove a risk of torture. Furthermore, the Committee is mindful of the length of time (at least 10 years) that has elapsed since the alleged incidents occurred and of the absence of allegations as to whether L.H. has been sought by the Russian authorities in the interim. 9.12 Accordingly, in the light of the above considerations, and in the absence of any further explanations or information of pertinence on file, the Committee concludes that the complainants have not adduced sufficient grounds for believing that they would run a real, foreseeable, personal and present risk of being subjected to torture or inhuman treatment upon return to the Russian Federation. 10. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the complainants’ removal to the Russian Federation by the State party would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 8 12 Sivagnanaratnam v. Denmark (CAT/C/51/D/429/2010), paras. 10.5–10.6.