CAT/C/62/D/685/2015 complainants have also claimed that he may be in charge of a police department. However, the Committee notes that the complainants only base this latter information on an Internet blog post by a private individual dated 23 March 2003, that is, before the incident that made the complainants leave Armenia had occurred, at which point they did not describe D.M. as working within the police or with any other governmental entity. The Committee notes that it has therefore not been established that D.M. is working within a governmental entity. It also notes that the complainants did not report the threats and assault against the male complainant to the police and that nothing on file indicates that the assault was inflicted with the consent or acquiescence of a public official. The Committee also notes the State party’s submission that the complainants have not presented any specific information that would enable the conclusion to be drawn that the local authorities would be unable or unwilling to protect them, should they be in need of such protection upon return to Armenia. The Committee therefore finds that the complainants have not sufficiently substantiated their claim that, upon their return to Armenia, they would be at risk of suffering retribution from D.M. with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or of other persons acting in an official capacity. 8.7 The Committee notes that the complainants’ claim that the male complainant would be at risk of being tortured by the Armenian police, in order to extort a false confession. In this connection, the Committee notes the current human rights situation in Armenia and refers to its concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Armenia, in which it expressed concern, inter alia, at the persistent allegations of torture and ill-treatment perpetrated by law enforcement officials during arrest, detention and interrogation, and at the remaining deficiencies in investigating and prosecuting such complaints effectively. 11 However, the Committee recalls that the occurrence of human rights violations in one’s country of origin is not sufficient in itself to conclude that a complainant runs a personal risk of torture. 12 The Committee is of the opinion that the complainants have therefore failed to establish the existence of a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture by the local police upon return to their country of origin. 8.8 As regards the complainants’ claim that they would be at risk of being killed or tortured by a locally influential clan, the head of which they claim is an elected parliamentary official, the Committee notes that the complainants do not submit any information according to which they have been personally threatened or assaulted by the clan. They argue that they are at risk of such treatment due to D.M.’s connection to the clan and due to the incident involving the male complainant’s brother. The complainants also submit that D.M.’s connections with the clan are common knowledge, but no specific details are provided in that regard. The Committee notes that the police opened an investigation into the alleged perpetrators of an assault against the male complainant’s brother, but that this complaint appears to have been closed following a counter-claim against the male complainant’s brother. The Committee finds that, based on the information on file, sufficient information has not been presented to enable a conclusion to be drawn about the reason for closing the investigation. On the basis of the facts as submitted by the complainants, the Committee is of the opinion that substantial grounds indicating a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture upon return have not been established as regards the complainants’ claims in this part of the complaint. 8.9 The Committee notes that the complainants have also claimed that the male complainant will not be afforded a fair trial in Armenia. However, the Committee notes that the complainants have not provided any specific information in that regard, and therefore finds that they have failed to substantiate this part of the complaint. 8.10 The Committee notes that in their asylum application, the complainants also made reference to the poor detention and prison conditions in Armenia. The Committee recalls its concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Armenia, in which it expressed concern at the poor material conditions in some prisons in Armenia, including the inadequate sanitary conditions, the low quality of nutrition and the limited offer of extraregime activities. However, in its concluding observations the Committee also welcomed 11 12 See CAT/C/ARM/CO/4, para. 17. See, inter alia, R.D. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/51/D/426/2010), para. 9.2. 9