CAT/C/71/D/885/2018 of the complainant’s rights under the Convention in that country, he would be deprived of the legal option of recourse to the Committee for protection of any kind.11 7.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 4, according to which the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. Although the risk does not have to be shown to be “highly probable”, the burden of proof generally falls on the complainant, who must present an arguable case establishing that he or she is at “personal, ... foreseeable and real” risk.12 The Committee further recalls that, in accordance with its general comment No. 4, it gives considerable weight to findings of fact 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, under article 22 (4) of the Convention, to make a free assessment of the information available to it, taking into account all the circumstances relevant to each case.13 7.5 In the present case, the Committee notes the complainant’s claim that he fears for his life if he returns to the Islamic Republic of Iran, because he has engaged in an intimate relationship with the daughter of a mullah with links to the Iranian secret services, despite the mullah’s refusal to consent to his daughter’s marriage to the complainant. In order to establish the credibility of his motives for fleeing, the complainant relies on a judgment of Marvdasht Revolutionary Court dated 5 October 2016. The Committee notes that the Swiss authorities have duly examined the form and substance of the judgment allegedly issued by the Iranian authorities and, despite the complainant’s explanations, have expressed doubts not only as to whether the document supports the complainant’s claims, but also as to whether it is authentic. In particular, the Committee notes that the parties agree that the judgment makes no mention of any prosecution or conviction for engaging in an intimate relationship outside marriage and that it does not set out any legal position or contain any direct instructions. Furthermore, the Committee notes that the complainant has not contested the State party’s claims that the judgment is a decision to execute an earlier judgment, rather than being an independent judgment in and of itself, and that, in any event, he has not demonstrated that it is a partial decision on the question of guilt on the basis of which he would risk a prison sentence. 7.6 The Committee also notes the fact that, according to the State party, the complainant does not claim to have been subjected to torture by the Iranian authorities in the past or to have engaged in political activities in the Islamic Republic of Iran or Switzerland. 7.7 The Committee is aware that numerous aspects of the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran remain problematic. Nevertheless, it recalls that the occurrence of human rights violations in the complainant’s country of origin is not, of itself, sufficient for it to conclude that a complainant would face a personal risk of being tortured. The Committee also notes that the complainant had ample opportunity to provide the State Secretariat for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court with supporting evidence and more information about his claims. However, on the basis of the evidence provided, it has not been possible to confirm the complainant’s account or to determine the existence of a personal, foreseeable, real and present risk of being subjected to torture in the event of his return to his country of origin. 7.8 On the basis of the information before it, the Committee concludes that the complainant has not proved that his alleged relationship outside marriage attracted the interest of the authorities of his country of origin and concludes that the information provided does not demonstrate that he would personally be at risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment in the event of his return to the Islamic Republic of Iran. 8. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee considers that the information submitted by the complainant is insufficient to substantiate his claim that he would face a personal, foreseeable and real risk of torture if he were returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. 11 12 13 8 Tahmuresi v. Switzerland (CAT/C/53/D/489/2012), para. 7.7. See, inter alia, M.A.R. v. Netherlands (CAT/C/31/D/203/2002), para. 7.3; and Dadar v. Canada (CAT/C/35/D/258/2004), para. 8.4. Committee against Torture, general comment No. 4, paras. 11, 39 and 50. GE.21-12735