CAT/C/62/D/685/2015 4.4 The State party considers it possible that upon return to Armenia the male complainant may face a court case concerning the drugs found in the car that he was driving on 3 March 2007. However, it argues that the mere risk of being arrested and tried is not sufficient to conclude that there is a risk of being subjected to torture. It submits that the complainants have not adduced any personal facts or circumstances which would require the conclusion to be drawn that there is a foreseeable, real risk of them becoming victims of torture. The State party also notes that the complainants have not claimed that they were subjected to torture prior to their departure from Armenia. The State party notes that on 3 March 2007, after drugs were found in the car, the male complainant was taken to a police station, where according to his own statements he was not ill-treated or tortured. It argues that it is therefore difficult to understand why the complainant would face such treatment upon his return. The State party also notes that the male complainant was released the same evening after his cousin had reported to the police station, and therefore considers that the police did not wish to put pressure on the male complainant in any way to force him to confess under torture or by any other means. It submits that the male complainant has not adduced any personal facts or circumstances that would indicate that the police would now have a reason to torture him. It also argues that the fact that he failed to comply with his bail conditions does not provide sufficient grounds for such a conclusion. The State party notes that in the domestic proceedings the complainants also claimed that the detention conditions in Armenia were poor and that to deport the male complainant to Armenia would therefore be contrary to the State party’s international obligations. In that connection, the State party argues that although the detention conditions in Armenia give cause for concern because of overcrowding, inadequate sanitary conditions and medical care, and corruption, it cannot be said that they generally amount to torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. 4.5 The State party notes that the complainants have also expressed a fear of D.M. and a local clan if returned to Armenia. The State party refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence and argues that the issue of whether a State party has an obligation to refrain from expelling a person who might risk pain or suffering inflicted by a non-governmental entity, without the consent or acquiescence of the authorities, falls outside the scope of article 3 of the Convention.4 It argues that the fact that D.M. and his associates have beaten and assaulted the male complainant does not constitute grounds to assume that he would suffer treatment prohibited under article 3 on his return. It submits that it has not been established that D.M. acted with the consent or acquiescence of the Armenian authorities. It notes that D.M. has not been the bodyguard of the former president of Armenia since 2002. Nor has it been established that D.M., either in 2007 or currently, has connections with the Armenian authorities or that he could exercise influence on the authorities. The State party also argues that it has not been demonstrated that the complainants would be unable to call on the protection of the Armenian authorities or that the authorities would be unable or unwilling to provide such protection. The State party notes that it was not until the complainants’ third asylum application that they stated that they also had reason to fear the local clan, and argues that the complainants have not been able to demonstrate that they would face problems from the clan or that any links exist between the clan and D.M. 4.6 Should the Committee not find the male complainant’s claim that he would not be given a fair trial in Armenia to be inadmissible, the State party submits that the mere fact that he may possibly not be afforded a fair trial on his return, or that other human rights would not be fully guaranteed, does not amount to torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. Complainants’ comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 6 February 2016, the complainants submitted their comments on the State party’s observations. They submit that the complaint is admissible in full. They note the State party’s submission that the claim that the male complainant would not be afforded a 4 The State party refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence in G.R.B. v. Sweden (CAT/C/20/D/83/1997), S.S. v. Netherlands (CAT/C/30/D/191/2001), M.P.S. v. Australia (CAT/C/28/D/138/1999) and M.F. v. Sweden (CAT/C/41/D/326/2007). 5