personal risk of being tortured in the country to which he or she is returned. In light of the foregoing, the Committee deems that such a risk has not been established by the authors. Moreover, the Committee observes that article 3 applies only to situations of torture as defined in article 1 of the Convention. 9.9 With regard to the authors' allegation that the decision to expel them would in itself constitute an act of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in contravention of article 16 of the Convention, the Committee notes that the authors have not submitted sufficient evidence in substantiation of this claim. 10. 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 authors' removal to Sri Lanka by the State party would not constitute a breach of article 3 or article 16 of the Convention. Notes 1. According to the State party, the author went first to Malaysia, where he stayed until 16 May 1992, then to Singapore on 16 May 1992 and finally arrived in Canada on 19 May 1992. The author did not claim protection in either of the first two countries. 2. The State party provides an explanation of this procedure in its PDRCC Guidelines. 3. The State party does not say what the specific risks were in relation to this case. 4. The State party has provided the text "Immigration Applications in Canada made on Humanitarian or Compassionate (H&C) Grounds", which describes this procedure in detail. 5. X v. The Netherlands (036/1995), J.U.A. v. Switzerland (100/1997), H.D. v. Switzerland (112/1998), S.M.R. and M.M.R. v. Switzerland (103/1998). 6. The State party does not provide the name or the registration number of this case. 7. Travaux préparatoires of the Convention