CAT/C/60/D/662/2015 prosecuted for apostasy, although it is not specifically codified as a crime in the Islamic Criminal Code. 7.9 Nevertheless, the Committee 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 is personally at risk of being tortured. On the basis of the information before it, the Committee concludes that the complainant has not provided proof that his conversion and his political activities are important enough to attract the interest of the authorities of his country of origin and concludes that the information that has been provided does not demonstrate that he would personally be at risk of torture if he were to return to the Islamic Republic of Iran.40 8. In the light of the above, the Committee considers that the information submitted by the complainant is insufficient to substantiate his claim that he would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture if he were returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. 9. The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the complainant’s return to the Islamic Republic of Iran would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention by the State party. 40 12 See, for example, communications No. 243/2004, S.A. v. Sweden, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 6 May 2004, para. 4.2; and W.G.D. v. Canada, para. 8.7. GE.17-12101