CAT/C/57/D/529/2012 did not provide and documentation relating to her release, nor an affidavit from the politician. 4.25 The State party observes that the complainant alleged that she had suffered significant mistreatment while in custody, but she did not submit any medical records, affidavits or letters from any doctor or other medical staff to attest to her alleged injuries. Although the complainant alleges that the experience continues to cause her emotional upset, she has not submitted documents of any kind from doctors or other health-care providers in the State party to attest to any ongoing physical or psychological harm. Therefore the core factual allegation of relevance to her claim in respect of article 3 of the Convention is entirely unsubstantiated. 4.26 The complainant had submitted two first information reports filed with the Pakistani police — the first with respect to her allegation that she was assaulted on 14 December 1999, and the second with respect to her allegation that her then husband, B.A., was shot by B. and his sons on 25 September 2001 —, a hospital report for B.A. dated 25 September 2001 and a hospital report for herself, dated 30 October 2002. The date of this latter report does not correspond to any violent incident alleged by the complainant and she did not explained its relevance to the communication. The complainant did not provide the State party’s decision makers with any evidence of either State actions or State acquiescence that caused or contributed to “severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental”, consistent with the definition of torture under article 1 of the Convention. 4.27 The State party submits that, although the complainant alleged that she faced a future risk of torture upon return because of the false accusation of adultery made by B., she did not provide any evidence to demonstrate that the police or other State authorities in Pakistan had any interest in responding to B.’s accusation of adultery. The accusation was made in November 2006, that is over six years ago; the complainant never alleged that the police had initiated an investigation or brought formal charges or ever took any action after she had filed the initial report concerning B.’s accusation. The complainant testified at the Refugee Protection Division hearing that she left Pakistan in January 2007 using her own passport, which is consistent with the notion that B.’s accusation was not being pursued at that time. 4.28 The State party notes that a risk of arrest does not, in itself, establish that returning the complainant would be a violation of the Convention.8 The complainant’s assertions that she is of continued interest to the local police and that she is at risk of arrest and imprisonment in Pakistan would not, in and of themselves, support a finding of a violation of article 3 if the complainant were returned to Pakistan — even if such assertions were supported by documentary evidence. 4.29 The State party also submits that the complainant did not substantiate her allegation that she faced a real risk of torture from private individuals, such as her ex-husband, B.A., or B. and his sons, with the acquiescence of State authorities. With respect to the risk allegedly presented by B.A., the complainant had alleged that, although her former husband initially defended her in relation to B.’s false accusations, over time, B. had managed to convince him that she did indeed commit adultery. B.A. divorced the complainant in February 2010. The complainant alleged that, if she were to return to Pakistan, he would seek to harm her, either by killing her or attempting to have the State authorities punish her. The complainant did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate that B.A. currently poses a real risk of causing her severe mental or physical harm. The complainant 8 10 See communications No. 355/2008, C.M. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 14 May 2008, para. 10.9; No. 57/1996, P.Q.L. v. Canada, decision adopted on 17 November 1997, para. 10.5; and No. 65/1997, I.A.O. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 6 May 1998, para. 14.5.