CAT/C/43/D/331/2007 on account of his PA-Amasekanya membership. Lastly, the Committee notes that the risk of the complainant being arrested on his return to Burundi is substantiated only by a letter from the President of the Ligue burundaise des droits de l’homme dated 10 January 2007, which mentions only a risk of imprisonment and not a substantial, real and personal risk of torture. The complainant refers to the disappearance of his brother but provides no evidence thereof.14 In the light of the above, the Committee considers that the complainant has not been able to provide objective evidence of a personal, real and present risk of torture upon return to Burundi. 7.8 The Committee notes that the complainant submitted his arguments and supporting evidence to the various State party authorities. It also notes the State party’s observation that, in the absence of procedural irregularities, the Committee should not substitute its own findings of fact for those of the Canadian authorities. The Committee nevertheless observes that, while it gives considerable weight to findings of fact made by the organs of the State party, it has the power of free assessment of the facts arising in the circumstances of each case.15 In the present case, the Committee notes that the complainant believes that obvious errors and serious irregularities did occur in the procedure concerning refugee status and that, because of those irregularities, the risk of torture in the event of deportation was not assessed. However, the Committee notes that the risk in question was in fact assessed in the PRRA officer’s decision dated 28 October 2006, in the light of all the elements of the case file made available to him. Moreover, the fact that the complainant was not called to a hearing is not of itself a procedural irregularity insofar as his arguments were considered by the Canadian authorities. Accordingly, the evidence received by the Committee does not show that the State party’s examination of the complainant’s allegations was flawed. 7.9 Lastly, the Committee must reiterate that, for the purposes of article 3 of the Convention, the individual concerned must face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being tortured. On the basis of the above, the Committee considers that the complainant has not substantiated his claim that he faces a real and imminent risk of being subjected to torture upon his return to Burundi. 7.10 The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention, considers that the complainant has not substantiated his claim that he would be tortured upon return to Burundi and therefore concludes that the complainant’s removal to that country would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. [Adopted in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the French 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.] 14 15 10 No copy of a missing person notice, for example. Communication No. 258/2004, Dadar v. Canada, Views adopted on 23 November 2005, para. 8.8. GE.09-46723