CAT/C/48/D/424/2010 is obliged to assess whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture were he/she to be expelled, returned or extradited, and that the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. While the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable, it must be foreseeable, real and personal.8 The Committee further recalls that under the terms of its general comment No. 1, it gives considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned, while at the same time it is not bound by such findings and instead has the power, provided by article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, of free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case. 8.4 The Committee notes the claim that there is a risk that the complainant would be tortured or ill-treated if deported to Azerbaijan because of his past political activities. The Committee notes that the complainant has failed to adduce any evidence that he was wanted for his political activities in Azerbaijan. In this regard, the complainant has not presented a copy of an arrest warrant or proof that there is an ongoing investigation and that he is personally the subject of such investigation. The Committee notes that the complainant has not claimed that he was detained or tortured in the past. 8.5 As to the complainant’s alleged involvement in political activities, the Committee notes that although it is uncontested that he was a member of the AMIP and later of Musavat, which are registered parties in Azerbaijan, it does not appear that he was in a leading position in either of those parties, and would not attract the particular interest of the Azerbaijani authorities if returned. Nor is there any evidence that while in Sweden he has been involved in any activity which would attract the interest of the same authorities several years after he left Azerbaijan. 8.6 The Committee considers, on the basis of all the information before it, that there is no ground to conclude that the complainant would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture if returned to Azerbaijan. The Committee therefore concludes that his removal to that country would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 9. 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 complainant’s removal to Azerbaijan by the State party would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. [Adopted in English, French and Spanish, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic, Chinese and Russian as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.] 8 8 See, inter alia, communications No. 296/2006, E.V.I. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 1 May 2007, and Nos. 270 and 271/2005, E.R.K. and Y.K. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 30 April 2007.