CAT/C/45/D/333/2007 human rights does not necessarily mean that a person cannot be considered to be in danger of being subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances. 7.4 The Committee is aware of the poor human rights situation in Uzbekistan. It has itself cited numerous, ongoing and consistent allegations concerning routine use of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment committed by Uzbek law enforcement and investigative officials or with their instigation or consent, often to extract confessions or information to be used in criminal proceedings, which commonly occur before formal charges are made and during pre-trial detention, when the detainee is deprived of fundamental safeguards, as well as the failure to conduct prompt, impartial and full investigations into claims of torture8. However, the Committee notes that the complainant has not provided sufficient information to support his claim that Tatars and therefore, he himself, are discriminated against to the extent that would place him at a particular risk of torture in Uzbekistan. In this regard, in previous decisions, the Committee has determined that the risk of torture must be foreseeable, real and personal.9 7.5 The Committee notes that despite several inquiries about medical or any other documentary evidence in support of his account of events in Uzbekistan prior to his departure, namely of his alleged arrest, and ill-treatment in detention in 1995, which would corroborate his claim or possible effects of such ill-treatment, the complainant did not provide any such evidence. Neither did he provide any report of a medical examination after his arrival in Canada. In such circumstances, the Committee finds that he has failed to establish his claim that he would personally be exposed to a substantial risk of being subjected to torture if returned to Uzbekistan at the present time. 8. In the light of the above, the Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, concludes that the decision of the State Party to return the complainant to Uzbekistan would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. [Adopted in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic and Chinese as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.] 8 Committee against Torture. Concluding observations: Uzbekistan. 26 February 2008. CAT/C/UZB/CO/3 9 A.R. v. The Netherlands, No. 203/2002, Views adopted on 21 November 2003, paragraph 7.3. 8