CAT/C/60/D/465/2011 dissenters’ march in the spring of 2007. He lodged three complaints with the Russian Federation prosecuting authorities in connection with the police mistreatment. The Committee notes, however, that none of them specified the alleged connection between his mistreatment and participation in the opposition movement. 9.5 The Committee further notes that, even if it were to accept the claim that the complainant was subjected to torture and/or ill-treatment in the past, the question is whether he remains at risk of torture in the Russian Federation in case of forcible return there. It notes that the complainant submitted that such a risk existed for him, particularly because of his complaints about the police mistreatment, the telephone call in August 2008 threating him with harm if he did not withdraw his complaint, the newspaper article about his case published in March 2008 and his participation in the opposition rally in 2007. The Committee notes, however, that the complainant has not put forward any evidence that the Russian Federation authorities have been looking for him following his departure from the country in August 2008 and would target him, in particular because of his affiliation with an opposition movement, if he were to be returned. In this connection, the Committee notes that it does not appear from the complainant’s submission that he was a high-profile opponent, that his role in the spring protests went beyond joining the marches on two occasions, or that he was politically active after his departure from the Russian Federation in August 2008. The Committee also notes that the complainant has not disputed that he travelled from the Russian Federation to Finland and back several times after his participation in the dissenters’ march and the alleged police mistreatment in 2007 and shortly before his flight to Finland in 2008. It also notes that the Finnish authorities that examined his asylum application found that he had failed to establish that he would be at risk of being subjected to persecution, torture or inhuman treatment upon return to the Russian Federation. 9.6 The Committee recalls that the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory, and that it is generally for the complainant to present an arguable case.8 In the light of these considerations, and on the basis of all the information submitted by the complainant and by the State party, including on the 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 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. 10. 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. 8 8 See, inter alia, communications No. 298/2006, C.A.R.M. and others 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; No. 150/1999, S.L. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 11 May 2001, para. 6.3; and No. 347/2008, N.B.-M. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 14 November 2011, para. 9.9.