CAT/C/36/D/256/2004 Page 12 State party has provided extensive reasons, based on expert evidence obtained by its consular services in Tehran, why it questioned the authenticity of each of the documents. In reply the complainant argues that, apparently, the criminal procedure was not applied in this case. The Committee considers that the complainant has failed to disprove the State party’s findings in this regard, and to validate the authenticity of any of the documents in question. It recalls its jurisprudence that it is for the complainant to collect and present evidence in support of his or her account of events. 3 9.6 As to his alleged previous political involvement, the Committee notes the complainant’s affirmation that he did not base his initial asylum request on such involvement. It concludes that he has faile d to adduce evidence about the conduct of any political activity of such significance that, would attract the interest of the authorities, and, in the language of the Committee’s General Comment No. 1 on article 3, would make him “particularly vulnerable” to the risk of being placed in danger of torture. 10. For the abovementioned reasons, the Committee concludes that the complainant has failed to substantiate his claim that he would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to tortur e upon his return to Iran. 11. The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, concludes that the removal of the complainant to Iran would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. [Adopted in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic and Chinese as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.] ----- 3 S.L. v. Sweden, No. 150/1999, Decision adopted on 11 May 2001.