CAT/C/49/D/435/2010 expressed in this connection, i.e. that credible reports attested that the complainant was kept arrested only for few hours in 2002 (see para. 4.13 above). The Committee also notes that the complainant did not specifically refute this information in his comments. 7.7 The Committee also takes note of the period of time elapsed since the events in 2002, and recalls that although past events may be of relevance, the principle aim of its assessment is to determine whether the complainant currently runs a risk of being subjected to torture upon his arrival in the United Republic of Tanzania.15 In this connection, the Committee notes also the State party’s reference to recent human rights reports assessing the current situation of journalists in Tanzania (see para. 4.15 above). 7.8 The Committee further notes that that the complainant has not refuted the State party’s observations concerning the fact that the article which allegedly attracted the attention of Tanzanian authorities to him was published on 3 August 2008, but that, notwithstanding, the complainant after that date was issued a passport on 27 August 2008 and was able to travel abroad without any obstruction. 7.9 Finally, as to the medical record submitted in the framework of this communication, the Committee observes that the complainant has not provided any explanation as to why he did not present it before the State party’s authorities, and that, in any event, nothing in the said record brings additional pertinent details on his alleged past ill-treatment. 8. In the circumstances, and in the absence of any other pertinent information on file, the Committee finds that the complainant has not established that in case of his expulsion to his country of origin he would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being tortured within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention. 9. Accordingly, 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 forcible return to the United Republic of Tanzania 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.] 15 10 Reference is made to X, Y and Z v. Sweden, para. 11.2.