CAT/C/59/D/658/2015 7.7 The Committee recalls that it must ascertain whether the complainant currently runs a risk of being subjected to torture if she were returned to Ethiopia. 10 The Committee notes that the complainant has had ample opportunity to provide supporting evidence and more details about her claims at the national level to the Federal Office of Migration and the Federal Administrative Court, but that the evidence provided did not allow the national authorities to conclude that her participation in political activities, while proven, could place her at risk of being subjected to torture upon her return. Furthermore, the Committee recalls that the occurrence of human rights violations in the complainant’s country of origin is not, of itself, sufficient for it to conclude that a complainant is personally at risk of being tortured. On the basis of the information before it, the Committee concludes that the complainant has not provided proof that her political activities are important enough to attract the interest of the authorities of her country of origin and concludes that the information provided does not demonstrate that she would personally be at risk of torture if she were to return to Ethiopia.11 8. In the light of the above, the Committee considers that the information submitted by the complainant is insufficient to establish her claim that she would be at a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture if she were returned to Ethiopia. 9. Accordingly, the Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the complainant’s return to Ethiopia would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention by the State party. 10 11 GE.17-04946 See, for example, communication No. 435/2010, G.B.M. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 14 November 2012, para. 7.7. See, for example, communication No. 243/2004, S.A. v. Sweden, inadmissibility decision of 6 May 2004, para. 4.2; and communication W.G.D. v. Canada, para. 8.7. 9