CAT/C/54/D/468/2011 his country of origin. 13 Likewise, with regard to the State party’s observations concerning the contradictory nature of the statements which the complainant made during the domestic proceedings, the Committee is of the view that the complainant has not submitted any information to support his response to the observations in question. The Committee considers that, even if it were certain that the complainant would be arrested on his return to Algeria because of a search warrant issued against him, the mere fact that he would be rearrested and considered a deserter would not constitute substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee finds that the information submitted by the complainant is insufficient to substantiate his claim that his return to Algeria would put him at a real, specific and personal risk of torture or ill-treatment. 8. In the light of the above, the Committee, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention concludes that the complainant’s removal to Algeria by the State party would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. __________________ 13 8/8 See communication No. 154/2000, M.S. v. Australia, decision adopted on 23 November 2001, para. 6.5. GE.15-11110