CAT/C/61/D/690/2015 9.7 The Committee notes the complainant’s allegations that, because his relatives are aware that he is homosexual, he will be in danger of honour-related violence with no means of seeking protection from the authorities. In that regard, the Committee observes that, although the complainant claims that his relatives have known about his sexual orientation at least since 2013, he did not provide information about any concrete threats from his family and relatives. The Committee also notes the complainant’s claim that the authorities know about his sexual orientation from the embassy staff, and that they will persecute him upon return to Lebanon. The Committee thus finds that the complainant’s allegations that he would be at a personal risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention are hypothetical and do not go beyond mere theory or suspicion. The Committee concludes that the complainant has not discharged the burden of presenting an arguable case according to the Committee’s general comment No. 1. 10. In the light of the considerations above, and on the basis of all the information submitted by the complainant, the Committee considers that the complainant has not provided sufficient evidence to enable it to conclude that his forcible removal to his country of origin would expose him to a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention. 11. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, decides that the complainant’s removal to Lebanon by the State party would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 6