CAT/C/54/D/539/2013 In addition, according to the State party, it appears highly unlikely that the complainant would have been given the assignment to infiltrate the rebels’ base despite the lack of cooperation on his part during his second detention. Furthermore, the State party noted that the complainant affirmed that his father visited him regularly while he was staying with friends in the village of Nadterechnoe. The State party reasons that, if the authorities had such an interest in the complainant, as he alleges, and they were indeed looking for him after his second release, they would have been able to find him either by following his father or by interrogating friends of the family. Moreover, the State party notes that the complainant did not provide any medical documentation to support his claims that he had been subjected to ill-treatment nor any documentation or evidence indicating that he was wanted by the Chechen authorities, nor has he submitted any documents showing that investigations or proceedings are pending against him before the Chechen authorities. In that connection, the Committee notes that the complainant has also not submitted any evidence to it to substantiate his claim that he would risk being subjected to torture by the authorities if returned to the Russian Federation. 7.8 The Committee further observes that the complainant merely stated before the Swedish Migration Board and the Migration Court that he feared that he would be subjected to torture if returned to the Russian Federation as he had been tortured in the past and would surely be targeted again. However, the Committee notes that the authorities of the State party thoroughly evaluated the complainant’s allegations at the domestic level and found that they lacked credibility. 7.9 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. 18 In the light of the considerations above and on the basis of all the information submitted to it by the complainant, including with regard to the general human rights situation in the Russian Federation, the Committee considers that the complainant has not provided sufficient evidence to enable it to conclude that his deportation to his country of origin would expose him to a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention. 8. Accordingly, the Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the complainant’s return to the Russian Federation would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention by the State party. 18 12 See communications No. 298/2006, C.A.R.M. et al. v. Canada, decision adopted on 18 May 2007, para. 8.10; No. 256/2004, M. Z. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 12 May 2006, para. 9.3; No. 214/2002, M. A. K. v. Germany, decision adopted on 12 May 2004, para. 13.5; No. 150/1999, S. L. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 11 May 2001, para. 6.3; and No. 347/2008, N. B-M. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 14 November 2011, para. 9.9.