CAT/C/54/D/539/2013 article 3 of the Convention, the following considerations were taken into account: (i) the general human rights situation in the Russian Federation; and, in particular, (ii) whether the complainant would be “personally” at risk of being subjected to torture if returned. 4.6 Furthermore, the State party recalls the Committee’s jurisprudence, according to which the burden of proof in cases like the present one rests with the complainant who must present an arguable case establishing that he runs a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture3 and the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion; if the risk does not meet the test of being highly probable, it must be personal and present.4 4.7 The State party notes that the Russian Federation is a party to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment as well to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It therefore assumes that the Committee is well aware of the general human rights situation in that country, including in the North Caucasus area. In that regard, the State party refers to various reports containing information on the human rights situation in the Russian Federation.5 4.8 The State party acknowledges that, while many reports indicate that the general level of violence and serious human rights violations in the Chechen Republic have decreased in recent years, there are still reports about violations such as disappearances, abuse and killings. The State party does not underestimate the concerns that may legitimately be expressed with regard to the current human rights situation in the Russian Federation and, more specifically in the North Caucasus area. However, the current situation in Chechnya does not in itself suffice to establish that the general situation in the region is such that deportation of the complainant would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention.6 Therefore, the State party contends that the deportation of the complainant to the Russian Federation would only constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention, if the complainant can show that he would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture in Chechnya. In the present case, the complainant has failed to substantiate his claims to that effect. 4.9 The State party points out that several provisions in the Swedish Aliens Act reflect the same principles as those set out in article 3 of the Convention and the Swedish migration authorities apply the same kind of test when considering an application for asylum under the Aliens Act as that applied by the Committee when examining communications under the Convention. The fact that the Swedish authorities applied such a test with regard to the complainant’s asylum request is indicated by the references in their decisions to chapter 4, sections 1, 2 and 2 (a), of the Aliens Act. Furthermore, the State party points out that chapter 12, sections 1 to 3, of the Aliens Act provide that the expulsion of an alien may never be enforced to a country where there are reasonable grounds to assume that the alien would be in danger of being subjected to, inter alia, torture or other 3 4 5 6 6 See, for example, communications No. 178/2001, H. O. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 13 November 2001, para. 13; and No. 203/2002, A. R. v. the Netherlands, Views adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 7.3. See, for example, the Committee’s general comment No. 1(1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, paras. 5–7. See United States of America, Department of State, Human Rights Report – Russia 2012; Amnesty International, Report 2012 – Russian Federation; Human Rights Watch, World Report 2012: Russia; Danish Immigration Service, Chechens in the Russian Federation – residence registration, racially motivated violence and fabricated criminal cases, 4/2012, August 2012; Swedish Migration Board, Country Profile – Russia (Landprofil Ryssland), 25 February 2011; Sweden, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Mänskliga rättigheter i Ryska Federationen 2011. See, for example, European Court of Human Rights, I v. Sweden, application No. 61204/09, judgement of 5 September 2013, para. 58.