CAT/C/65/D/801/2017 enforcement officials during arrest, detention and interrogation, and at the remaining deficiencies in investigating and prosecuting such complaints effectively (CAT/C/ARM/CO/4, para. 17). However, the Committee recalls that the occurrence of human rights violations in the country of origin is not sufficient in itself to conclude that a complainant runs a personal risk of torture and that additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. 7.7 The Committee further notes that the complainant also claims that he would risk being subjected to torture or ill-treatment owing to the ongoing investigation against him in Armenia and the treatment to which he claims to have been subjected when previously detained in the country. The Committee also notes the State party’s submission that the State party authorities found the complainant’s account in support of his asylum application to be not credible as, according to the findings of the investigation carried out in Armenia on behalf of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, he had not been detained by the police during the specific time periods in question; he had not lodged a criminal complaint against his manager; he had not resigned from his job in November 2010, as claimed, but had stayed in employment until 1 April 2011; and he was not being sought by the Armenian authorities. The Committee notes the complainant’s argument that the findings of the person-specific investigation carried out by the State party authorities are not reliable as he was not provided with any information on how the information had been gathered and was not allowed to examine the underlying investigation report relied upon by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs in its report to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. It further notes the State party’s argument that in investigating the information and documents submitted by asylum seekers, the services of the confidential agents enlisted are carefully screened for objectivity and reliability on the basis of information supplied by NGOs, international organizations and third-country embassies. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that in examining an asylum application, both the district court and the Administrative Jurisdiction Division are able to base their judgments concerning a person-specific report in part on the documents used in drawing up that report. The Committee further notes the State party’s argument that the complainant’s claim that the information provided to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is likely to be unreliable is unsubstantiated and of a speculative nature. The Committee notes in this regard that the complainant has not presented any specific reason, argument or documentation that would indicate that the findings of the report in question are unreliable. The Committee further notes that in his asylum application the complainant claimed that he was being sought by the Armenian authorities. In that connection, the Committee notes his claim that when he was released on bail on 10 January 2011, his passport was confiscated. The Committee however notes that, according to the findings of the person-specific report, the complainant was issued with a new passport on 11 March 2011, after which he left the country. The Committee notes that the complainant has not provided any information or argumentation as to why the authorities would issue a new passport to him after his previous one had been confiscated. The Committee is therefore of the opinion that the complainant has failed to submit arguments showing that the risk for him of being subjected to torture is foreseeable, present, personal and real if he is returned to Armenia. 7.8 The Committee notes that the complainant further claims that he will not receive a fair trial if returned to Armenia. However, the Committee notes that the complainant has not provided any specific information in that regard, and therefore finds that he has failed to substantiate this part of the complaint. 8. On the basis of the above, and in the light of the material before it, the Committee considers that the complainant has not provided sufficient evidence to enable it to conclude that his forcible removal to his country of origin would expose him 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 complainant’s removal to Armenia by the State party would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 7