CAT/C/47/D/347/2008 9.9 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence, according to which it is normally for the complainant to present an arguable case.20 On the basis of all the information submitted to it, including information on the situation in Kinshasa, the Committee is of the view that the complainant has not provided sufficient evidence to allow it to consider that her return to the Democratic Republic of the Congo would put her at a real, present and personal risk of being subjected to torture, as required under article 3 of the Convention. 10. 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 the Democratic Republic of the Congo 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.] 20 GE.12-40160 See communication No. 298/2006, C.A.R.M. et al. v. Canada, Views adopted on 18 May 2007, para. 8.10; communication No. 256/2004, M.Z. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 12 May 2006, para. 9.3; communication No. 214/2002, M.A.K. v. Germany, Views adopted on 12 May 2004, para. 13.5; and communication No. 150/1999, S.L. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 11 May 2001, para. 6.3. 13