CAT/C/48/D/382/2009 complainant’s hearing by the Federal Office for Migration, the complainant stated that the acquisition of a copy of the arrest warrant had cost a lot of money, which led the State party to its conclusion that the document was forged against a bribe. The complainant has not put forward a persuasive argument that would allow the Committee to call into question the State party’s conclusions in this respect. 7.7 With regard to the risk of torture that the complainant claims he faces because of the fact that he was a vigilant member of MLC and played an active role during the presidential electoral campaign in 2006, the Committee observes the State party’s challenges to the substantiation and credibility of the complainant’s claims. It also notes the complainant’s statement that the documents proving his affiliation to MLC were seized during his arrest by the security forces. The Committee notes the lack of complainant’s capacity to provide further details about the structure and management of MLC. It further notes that the complainant did not participate in the political activities of MLC in Switzerland. The complainant has not provided any explanation of the reasons for which he has not been involved in the activities of MLC after the departure from his country. The Committee concludes that the complainant has not shown to have been involved in political activities to such an extent to convincingly demonstrate how this would expose him to a specific risk if he were to be returned to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 7.8 In view of all the information before it, the Committee considers that the material before it does not show that the complainant who may have been active in the context of 2006 presidential elections is still a wanted person or that he would be at risk of torture or ill-treatment. Consequently, the Committee is not able to conclude that the complainant’s return to the Democratic Republic of the Congo would expose him to a real, specific and personal risk of torture within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention. The Committee is concerned at the many reports of human rights violations, including the use of torture in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, but recalls that for the purposes of article 3 of the Convention the individual concerned must face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being tortured in the country to which he or she is returned. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee deems that such a risk has not been established. 7.9 The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, consequently concludes that the removal of the complainant to the Democratic Republic of the Congo would not constitute a violation 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