CAT/C/54/D/550/2013 authorities in 2009 and 2010, despite the fact that the alleged threats towards them began in 2008. 7.9 Finally, the Committee takes note of the State party’s submission that the complainants alleged that they had been summoned for questioning in the Russian Federation and that two arrest warrants had been issued in their names; however, the complainants never explained who had sent those documents to Sweden or how that person had come into possession of them. In this connection, the Committee notes that, in addition, no explanation was provided to the Committee regarding the source of these documents. 7.10 The Committee observes that the complainants merely stated before the Migration Board and the Migration Court that they feared being subjected to further ill-treatment if returned to the Russian Federation, claiming that they had been harassed in the past, and that they would be targeted again. It notes, however, that the State party’s authorities thoroughly evaluated the complainants’ allegations and story, and found it to generally lack credibility. 7.11 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence whereby 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.25 In the light of the considerations above, and on the basis of all the information submitted by the complainants and the State party, including on the general situation of human rights in the Russian Federation, the Committee considers that the complainants have not provided sufficient evidence to enable it to conclude that their deportation to their country of origin would expose them to a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention. 8. Accordingly, the Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the complainants’ return to the Russian Federation would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention by the State party. 25 14 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. 9.3; No. 214/2002, M.A.K. v. Germany, decision adopted on 12 May 2004, para. 13.5; S.L. v. Sweden, para. 6.3; and No. 347/2008, N.B.-M. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 14 November 2011, para. 9.9.