Democratic Republic of the Congo, his detention there and the fact that he was being searched in that country, were sufficient arguments to conclude that he would face a personal risk of torture if returned to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It therefore found that the complainant’s return to the Democratic Republic of the Congo would constitute a breach by Switzerland of his rights under article 3 of the Convention. 87. In its decision on complaint No. 303/2006 (T.A. v. Sweden), the Committee considered that the complainant’s expulsion to Azerbaijan would not violate article 3 of the Convention, in the absence of a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being tortured upon return to that country. 88. At its fortieth session, the Committee adopted decisions on the merits in respect of complaints Nos. 293/2006 (J.A.M.O. et al. v. Canada), 301/2006 (Z.K. v. Sweden), 309/2006 (R.K. et al. v. Sweden) and 311/2007 (M.X. v. Switzerland). The text of these decisions is also reproduced in annex XI, section A, to the present report. 89. In its decision on complaint No. 293/2006 (J.A.M.O. et al. v. Canada), concerning the complainant’s allegation that his expulsion to Mexico would constitute a breach by Canada of his rights under article 3 of the Convention, the Committee noted the absence of objective evidence pointing to the existence of risk of torture by the complainant, his wife and his daughter. Accordingly, the Committee concluded that their removal to Mexico would not violate article 3 of the Convention. 90. In complaint No. 301/2006 (Z.K. v. Sweden) the complainant claimed that his deportation to Azerbaijan would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention, as he risked being arrested, tortured and killed, in relation to his political activities and his role as an electoral observer during past general elections in that country. The Committee concluded that it did not necessarily follow that several years after the alleged mistreatment by the Azerbaijani authorities occurred, he would still be at risk of being subjected to torture if returned to Azerbaijan. In addition, he failed to demonstrate that his activities as a party member were of such significance that he would attract the interest of the Azerbaijani authorities. Further, the Committee considered that the complainant failed to provide any information that he had been involved in Azerbaijani politics from Sweden, outside of a protest in April 2005, so as to attract interest of the authorities or experience persecution. The Committee therefore concluded that his removal to Azerbaijan would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 91. In complaint No. 309/2006 (R.K. et al. v. Sweden) the complainant claimed that his deportation and that of his family to Azerbaijan would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention, as he risked being tortured on account of his political activities as a member of the Musavat party, his activities as a journalist, a witness statement he is alleged to have made before an Azerbaijani court relating to the demonstrations which accompanied the elections of 2003, and on medical evidence which he claimed confirms that he suffers from post traumatic stress disorder due to past acts of torture. The Committee observed that the author was not in a leading position in the party, that he failed to adduce evidence of his involvement in the demonstrations that accompanied the elections of 2003, and that he admitted that he was not convicted of any charge following these demonstrations and was not wanted by the authorities. On the issue of past torture, the Committee considered that, irrespective of the contents of the medical reports, it did not automatically follow that several years after the alleged events 105