CAT/C/24/D/116/1998 page 8 subjected to torture were he/she to be expelled, returned or extradited, the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. However, the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable” (A/53/44, annex IX, para. 6). 6.5 In the present case, the Committee notes that the State party draws attention to a number of inconsistencies and contradictions in the author’s account, casting doubt on the truthfulness of his allegations. It also notes the explanations provided by counsel in that respect. 6.6 The Committee finds the arguments advanced by the author in support of his allegations of being tortured before fleeing the Democratic Republic of the Congo to be inconsistent and unconvincing. 6.7 The Committee also finds that it has not been given enough evidence by the author to conclude that the latter would run a personal, real and foreseeable risk of being tortured if returned to his country of origin. 6.8 The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, concludes that the decision of the State party to return the author to the Democratic Republic of the Congo does not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. [Done in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the French text being the original version.] Notes 1 Gorki Ernesto Tapia Paez v. Sweden, Communication No. 39/1996, section 14.5. 2 Babikir v. Switzerland, Communication No. 38/1985. 3 Seid Mortesa Aemei v. Switzerland, Communication No. 34/1995. 4 X, Y and Z v. Sweden, Communication No. 61/1996. -----