CAT/C/66/D/776/2016 2017 on the initial report of Pakistan, in which it expressed concern about reportedly inadequate efforts by government authorities to protect vulnerable individuals, including members of Christian communities and individuals accused of blasphemy, from violence by non-State actors (CAT/C/PAK/CO/1, para. 36). The Committee recalls that according to its general comment No. 2 (2007) on the implementation of article 2, the failure of States parties to exercise due diligence to intervene to stop, sanction and provide remedies to victims of torture facilitates and enables non-State actors to commit acts impermissible under the Convention with impunity (para. 18). However, the Committee also recalls that the occurrence in the country of return of human rights violations, whether by State or nonState actors, is not in and of itself sufficient for it to conclude that a complainant is personally at risk of being tortured.17 The Committee refers to its findings in paragraphs 7.8 and 7.9 above, and considers that in the present case, the complainants have not demonstrated that the State party failed to properly assess their claims that the male complainant was sought by the police in connection with blasphemy allegations and was threatened and violently attacked by individuals who had asked him to illegally provide them with Swiss visas. For the reasons stated above, the Committee considers that the information submitted by the complainants is insufficient to establish substantial grounds for believing that if returned to Pakistan, they would face a foreseeable, personal, present and real risk of being tortured, either by State officials or by uncontrolled non-State agents. 8. On the basis of the above, and in the light of the material before it, the Committee considers that the complainants have not provided sufficient evidence to enable it to conclude that their forcible removal to Pakistan would expose them to a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention. 9. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, decides that the complainants’ removal to Pakistan by the State party would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention.18 17 18 GE.19-13276 E.g., I.E. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/62/D/683/2015), para. 7.8. The Committee nevertheless expresses concern at the complainants’ uncontested claim that although the State party requested to discontinue the present communication on 25 April 2017 on the ground that the complainants had disappeared, they had already informed the Swiss authorities of their move from government-provided housing to a private residence in Switzerland in a letter dated 24 March 2017. 11