CAT/C/46/D/375/2009 party does not in itself entail a risk of persecution, with the exception of two specific parties, the Oromo Liberation Front and the Ogaden National Liberation Front. The Committee has also noted the State party’s argument, to which it attaches the necessary weight, that the profile of each complainant must be considered on a case-by-case basis in the light of the full set of circumstances in order to establish that he would be particularly at risk of persecution or torture if returned. 7.8 The Committee notes that the State party has acknowledged and taken into account the fact that the Ethiopian authorities may be monitoring the activities of opponents in exile. However, it has established that the decisive factor in assessing the risk of torture on return is whether the person occupies a position of particular responsibility in a movement opposing the regime and thus poses a threat to it. The Committee also attaches the necessary weight to the State party’s argument that, in view of the actual activities of a [CUDP] cantonal representative, simply holding this position does not mean that the person concerned can be considered a threat to the Ethiopian Government, so that it is unlikely that the complainant’s activities will have attracted the attention of the authorities. 7.9 The Committee also notes that, although the complainant says that he was arrested and detained in 2003 and was subsequently wanted by the police, he does not claim to have been subjected to any threats, intimidation or other form of pressure from the Ethiopian authorities. He has not reported that any judicial proceedings were opened against him, or produced any evidence, such as an arrest warrant or wanted notice, to support his claims that he was wanted and thus would be subjected to treatment in violation of article 3 of the Convention if returned. Reaffirming that it is normally for the complainant to present an arguable case,7 the Committee is of the view that, on the basis of all the information submitted to it, the complainant has not provided sufficient evidence to allow it to consider that his return to Ethiopia would put him at a real, present and personal risk of being subjected to torture, as required under article 3 of the Convention. 8. The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, therefore concludes that the return of the complainant to Ethiopia would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. [Adopted in English, French and Spanish, the French text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic, Chinese and Russian, as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.] 7 GE.11-43945 See communications No. 298/2006, C.A.R.M. et al. v. Canada, Views adopted 18 May 2007, para. 8.10; No. 256/2004, M.Z. v. Sweden, Views adopted 12 May 2006, para. 9.3; No. 214/2002, M.A.K. v. Germany, Views adopted 12 May 2004, para. 13.5; and No. 150/1999, S.L. v. Sweden, Views adopted 11 May 2001, para. 6.3. 7