CAT/C/49/D/435/2010 as evidence. In addition, even if assuming that the medical record would be sufficient to establish that the complainant had been subjected to treatment that may have amounted to torture in the past, this does not indicate that the complainant, thereby, has substantiated his claim that he would currently risk torture in the event of being returned to his country of origin. On the contrary, there are no indications that the complainant will be subjected to such treatment if returned to Tanzania. 4.13 Further, the State party holds that there are doubts as to the veracity of the complainant’s assertion about the period of his detention in 2002. The State party points out that both the Committee to Protect Journalists (in its report Attacks on the Press 2002, published on 31 March 2003) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (in Media Legislation in Africa: A Comparative Legal Study) reported that the complainant was under arrest in 2002, but only for a few hours. This information contradicts the complainant’s statement that he was detained between 30 April and the end of June 2002. 4.14 The State party notes that the article which allegedly attracted the attention of Tanzanian authorities was published on 3 August 2008. However, on 27 August 2008, the Police Control Office of the Ministry of Immigration in the United Republic of Tanzania issued a passport to the complainant three and a half weeks after the publication of the article, and the complainant was able to travel legally to Sweden. The State party believes that the complainant would have been prevented from leaving his country of origin if he had been targeted by the authorities. In addition, the complainant could work as a journalist and publish articles after the alleged events of 2002 and after having been banned from reporting on any business conducted by members of the Government in 2007. According to his visa application of 28 August 2008, the complainant was employed by the Tanzania Daima newspaper as an editor. The State party believes that all this shows clearly that the complainant was not of interest to the authorities when he left his country and that there would be no threat against him there. 4.15 The State party notes that a substantial period of time had elapsed since the events in 2002 and recalls that although past events may be of relevance, the principle aim of the Committee’s 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.10 In this regard, the State party stresses that the most recent human rights reports generally give a fairly positive picture of the current situation of journalists in Tanzania. According to the above-mentioned reports,11 independent media in Tanzania express a wide variety of views and publish articles that are critical of the Government without restrictions or reprisals. Moreover, when the complainant left Tanzania, he was employed by the opposition’s newspaper Tanzania Daima. Accordingly, nothing indicates that the complainant would attract the attention of the Tanzanian authorities because of his previous activities in case of his return. 4.16 In conclusion, the State party submits that the evidence and circumstances invoked by the complainant do not suffice to establish that the alleged risk of torture meets the requirements of being foreseeable, real and personal. The complainant has thus not shown substantial grounds for believing that he would run a real and personal risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention if deported to the United Republic of Tanzania. Accordingly, the State party believes that the enforcement of the expulsion order, under the present circumstances, would not constitute a violation of article 10 11 Reference is made to communication No. 61/1996, X, Y and Z v. Sweden, Views adopted 6 May 1998, para. 11.2. See para. 4.8 above. 7