CAT/C/62/D/683/2015 credible during the first asylum procedure and no further evidence in that regard was submitted at the second asylum procedure. It notes that, according to the State party, the complainant was not politically active before his departure from the Sudan. The Committee, nonetheless, notes the complainant’s objections that he did attract the adverse attention of the authorities while in the Sudan, his description of the circumstances of his detention and release and the fact that his allegations were credible as they did not contain any discrepancies. The Committee observes that the complainant has not submitted any evidence supporting his claims of having been severely ill-treated by the Sudanese authorities prior to his departure, or suggesting that the police or other authorities in the Sudan have been looking for him in the interim. The complainant has not claimed, either before the Swiss asylum authorities or in his complaint to the Committee, that any charges would be brought against him under domestic law in the Sudan. 7.7 As regards the complainant’s political activities, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the complainant only established contact with the Justice and Equality Movement in Switzerland and that his membership of, alleged activities relating to and purported function within the Movement in Switzerland do not give rise to a particular profile which would represent a risk of persecution, in particular as the complainant himself has admitted that he was not a high-ranking member of the Movement. The Committee also notes that, according to the State party, the complainant described his role in the Movement in vague terms. In addition, his participation in the Movement’s meetings was documented by only two photographs not taken in the presence of an audience and he only had contact with the secretary-general of the Justice and Equality Movement in London on one occasion, despite claiming to be in frequent contact with senior members of the Movement. Moreover, he did not have a particular political profile that would make him a target of persecution, or direct exposure to or contact with the Sudanese authorities. The Committee further notes the complainant’s claim that the Sudanese authorities monitor opposition members abroad, but observes that he has not elaborated on this claim or presented any evidence to support it. In the Committee’s view, the complainant has failed to adduce sufficient evidence about the conduct of any political activity of such significance that would attract the interest of the Sudanese authorities and he has not submitted any other evidence to demonstrate that the authorities in his home country are looking for him and that he would face a personal risk of being tortured if returned to the Sudan. As to the complainant’s allegation that he would be arrested and interrogated upon return to the Sudan due to a long-term stay abroad and his applications for asylum, the Committee recalls that the mere risk of being arrested and interrogated is not sufficient to conclude that there is also a risk of being subjected to torture.34 7.8 The Committee recalls that it must ascertain whether the complainant currently runs a risk of being subjected to torture if he were returned to the Sudan. 35 The Committee notes that the complainant has had ample opportunity to provide supporting evidence and additional details concerning his claims 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 his participation in political activities in Switzerland, while proven, would expose him to a risk of being subjected to torture if returned to the Sudan. The Committee also observes that the complainant did not submit that the national asylum proceedings suffered from any irregularities. As regards the State party’s practice of accepting internal relocation within the Sudan, the Committee draws attention to its jurisprudence, according to which internal flight or relocation does not represent a reliable and durable alternative, in particular where the lack of protection is generalized and the individual concerned would be exposed to further risk of persecution or serious harm in another part of the State to which he or she is being returned. 36 The Committee, however, 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 an individual would be at 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 34 35 36 See, for example, P.Q.L. v. Canada (CAT/C/19/D/57/1996), para. 10.5. See, for example, G.B.M. v. Sweden (CAT/C/49/D/435/2010), para. 7.7. See, for example, Uttam Mondal v. Sweden (CAT/C/46/D/338/2008), para. 7.4; and M.K.M. v. Australia (CAT/C/60/D/681/2015), para. 8.9. 11