Advance unedited version CAT/C/63/D/744/2016 findings and instead has the power, provided by article 22 (4) of the Convention, of free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case. 7.5 The Committee notes the complainant’s claim that his expulsion to Iraq would amount to a violation of article 3 of the Convention, as he would be exposed to a risk of torture or other ill-treatment by the Iranian authorities who are active in Iraq, based on his engagement with the KDPI, an opposition party. It also notes his claims that he is known to the Iranian authorities for his involvement with the KDPI; that there is a risk for members of the KDPI to be subjected to assaults and torture by the Iranian authorities, who have a right to reside in Iraq without a visa and have already killed and kidnapped members of the KDPI; and that the Iraqi authorities lack determination in protecting KDPI members. However, the Committee notes that, as stated by the State party, the complainant does not provide any information demonstrating that he has been subjected to any specific threat by the Iranian regime targeting him personally, but simply referred to a threat of persecution based on his engagement with the KDPI. It further notes the State party’s conclusion that the complainant has failed to demonstrate that there are substantial grounds for believing that he would personally be at a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture within the meaning of the Convention upon return to Iraq. Finally, the Committee takes note of the fact that the complainant has not plausibly demonstrated his identity or citizenship, but also that he does not contest that he was born, educated and lived in Iraq before coming to Sweden. 7.6 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence whereby the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory, and indicates that it is generally for the complainant to present an arguable case.35 In the light of the considerations above, and on the basis of all the information submitted by the complainant and the State party, including on the general situation of human rights in Iraq, the Committee considers that the complainant has not adequately demonstrated the existence of substantial grounds for believing that his return to Iraq would expose him to a real, specific and personal risk of torture, as required under article 3 of the Convention. Moreover, his claims do not establish that the evaluation of his asylum application by the Swedish authorities was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 8. In the light of the considerations above, and on the basis of all the information submitted by the complainant, the Committee considers that the complainant has not provided sufficient evidence to enable it to conclude that his forcible removal to Iraq would expose him to a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention. 9. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the complainant’s removal to Iraq by the State party would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 35 See, for example, C.A.R.M. et al. v. Canada (CAT/C/38/D/298/2006), para. 8.10; Zare v. Sweden (CAT/C/36/D/256/2004), para. 9.3; M.A.K. v. Germany (CAT/C/32/D/214/2002), para. 13.5; S.L. v. Sweden (CAT/C/26/D/150/1999), para. 6.3; and N.B.-M. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/47/D/347/2008), para. 9.9. 13