CAT/C/65/D/822/2017 7.8 Nevertheless, the Committee recalls that the occurrence of human rights violations in the complainant’s country of origin is not, of itself, sufficient for it to conclude that a complainant is personally at risk of being tortured. 23 The Committee also notes that the complainant had ample opportunity to provide supporting evidence and more details about his claims to the Swiss authorities, in the course of three sets of asylum proceedings. However, the evidence provided by the complainant fails to sufficiently substantiate his claim and does not make it possible to conclude that his involvement in political activities in the Islamic Republic of Iran and Switzerland could put him at risk of being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment upon his return to the Islamic Republic of Iran. 7.9 On the basis of the information before it, the Committee concludes that the complainant has not proved that his political activities are important enough to attract the attention of the authorities of his country of origin, and finds that the information provided does not demonstrate that he would face a personal, foreseeable and real risk of torture if he were to be returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. 24 8. In the light of the above, the Committee considers that the information submitted by the complainant is insufficient to substantiate his claim that he would face a personal, foreseeable and real risk of torture if he were to be returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. 9. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, decides that the return of the complainant to the Islamic Republic of Iran would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention by the State party. 23 24 10 See, for example, H.R.E.S. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/64/D/783/2016), para. 8.14. See, for example, M.K. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/60/D/662/2015), paras. 7.8–7.9, and Ravanbakhsh Rasooli v. Switzerland, paras. 7.8–7.9.