CAT/C/66/D/771/2016 of his detention has been carried out by the International Commission of Jurists. It also notes that the claims made by the complainant are primarily based on the presumption that, as a person extradited on genocide charges, he would automatically be at risk of torture on return to Rwanda. It further notes, however, that the information presented by the complainant does not contain any specific reference to allegations of torture of Rwandan returnees under the Transfer Law to be tried for acts of genocide. 24 The Committee notes that the complainant has not provided any concrete information or evidence that would indicate that he would face a real, personal and foreseeable risk of torture if extradited to Rwanda, in violation of article 3 of the Convention. The Committee therefore concludes that the complainant’s extradition to Rwanda would not expose him to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention. 11. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the complainant’s removal to Rwanda by the State party does not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 24 12 See also, L.M. v. Canada (CAT/C/63/D/488/2012), para. 11.5.