CAT/C/71/D/883/2018 of the information available to it in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, taking into account all the circumstances relevant to each case.14 8.6 In the present case, the Committee notes the complainants’ claim that V.M. was abused, harassed and detained several times by police officers in Armenia and that the family is afraid of being persecuted, tortured or ill-treated if they are sent back to their country of origin. The Committee also notes the complainants’ argument that V.M. remains a person of interest to the Armenian authorities due to his perceived political opinion. The Committee further notes the complainants’ argument that the fact that the adult complainants were not provided with an oral hearing before the Migration Court amounts to a breach of their right to a proper hearing and investigation. The Committee notes that the complainants consider that the State party did not accurately assess their credibility. The Committee notes the State party’s arguments that the complainants did not seek national protection in Armenia and that the alleged facts do not reach the threshold for granting international protection, thus, they cannot seek international protection from the Swedish authorities. The Committee also notes the State party’s assertion that the abuses are isolated acts committed by police officers acting outside of their duties. The Committee further notes the State party’s argument that an oral hearing was held by the Swedish Migration Agency and that it is not a mandatory part of the procedure before the Migration Court, and that, in the present case, it was not deemed necessary, in accordance with the applicable rules and procedures. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the complainants have not sufficiently substantiated their claim that they would be persons of interest at present. 8.7 As regards the general human rights situation in Armenia, the Committee observes that the complainants claim that there is a consistent pattern of gross and massive violations of human rights in Armenia, especially against journalists and opponents, as well as a lack of effective remedies for victims of police violence. The complainants submit that for this reason, they would not be able to seek protection from the authorities in Armenia. In that connection, the Committee refers to its concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Armenia, in which it expressed concern at, inter alia, 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.15 However, the Committee recalls that the occurrence of human rights violations in the country of origin is not sufficient in itself to conclude that a complainant runs a personal risk of torture, and that additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk.16 8.8 The Committee recalls that the burden of proof is on the author of the complaint, who has to present an arguable case, unless the complainant is in a situation where he or she cannot elaborate on his or her case.17 In the light of the above-mentioned considerations and on the basis of all the information submitted by the complainants and the State party, including on the general situation of human rights in Armenia, the Committee considers that the complainants have disagreed with the assessments carried out by the Swedish migration authorities; however, the complainants have not adequately demonstrated the existence of substantial grounds for believing that their return to Armenia at present would expose them to a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture, as required under article 3 of the Convention. Moreover, their claims do not establish that the assessment of their asylum applications by the Swedish authorities would have been arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice or manifest procedural errors. 8.9 The Committee is of the opinion that the complainants have therefore failed to establish the existence of a foreseeable, personal, present and real risk of torture by the authorities of Armenia, including the police, upon return to their country of origin. 14 15 16 17 8 Ibid., para. 50. CAT/C/ARM/CO/4, para. 17. See, inter alia, E.T. v. Netherlands (CAT/C/65/D/801/2017), para. 7.6. See the Committee’s general comment No. 4 (2017), para. 38.