CAT/C/38/D/270&271/2005 Page 12 documents in question. It recalls its jurisprudence that it is for the complainants to collect and present evidence in support of his or her account of events6. 8. For the abovementioned reasons, the Committee concludes that the complainants have failed to substantiate their claim that they would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture upon his return to Azerbaijan. 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 removal of the complainants to Azerbaijan would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. [Adopted in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic and Chinese as part of the Committee's annual report to the General Assembly.] ----- . 6 See Mehdi Zare v Sweden, Communication No. 256/2004, Views of 17 May 2006, para. 9.5; M.A.K. v Germany, Communication No. 214/2002, Views of 14 May 2004, para. 13.5; S.L. v. Sweden, Communication No. 150/1999, Views of 11 May 2001, para. 6.4.