CAT/C/54/D/556/2013 8.8 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory, and indicates that it is generally for the complainant to present an arguable case. 15 In the light of the considerations above, and on the basis of all the information submitted by the complainant, including on the general human rights situation in the Russian Federation, the Committee considers that the complainant has not provided sufficient evidence to enable it to conclude that his expulsion 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, therefore concludes that the complainant’s expulsion to the Russian Federation would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 15 10 See communications No. 298/2006, C.A.R.M. et al. v. Canada, decision adopted on 18 May 2007, para. 8.10; No. 256/2004, M.Z. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 12 May 2006, para. 9.5; No. 214/2002, M.A.K. v. Germany, decision adopted on 12 May 2004, para. 13.5; No. 150/1999, S.L. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 11 May 2001, para. 7; and No. 347/2008, N.B.-M. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 14 November 2011, para. 9.9.