CAT/C/64/D/810/2017 Gharsallah might be subjected to torture if he was extradited. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion, and it is generally for the complainant to present an arguable case.34 8.7 In the present case, the Committee observes that the complainant merely alleges that her husband is in danger of being tortured for political reasons. The Committee notes that the complainant has not shown that Mr. Gharsallah is personally at risk, as she has not indicated whether he was previously subjected to torture 35 in Tunisia, whether he has been threatened with torture, whether he was wanted by the authorities, whether other members of the Rassemblement Constitutionnel Démocratique have been subjected to such treatment since the change of regime in 2011, whether he has been sentenced in absentia 36or whether the nature of the sentence he faces essentially amounts to torture. 37 As to whether the risk of torture is real, the Committee recalls that Mr. Gharsallah fled Tunisia after the resignation of former President Ben Ali in January 2011 and that the complainant has made no attempt to show that her husband is now, several years after the fact, in danger of being subjected to torture in that country. Finally, the Committee observes that, since the complainant has not shown that the risk is real and personal, there is no basis for finding that Mr. Gharsallah’s extradition would expose him to a foreseeable risk of torture. 8.8 The Committee observes that in the present case the authorities of the State party did not have any evidence allowing them to carry out a more accurate assessment of the complainant’s general allegation concerning the risk of torture. On the basis of all the information submitted by the complainant, including on the general situation in Tunisia, the Committee finds that the complainant has not provided sufficient evidence to enable it to conclude that the extradition of her husband to Tunisia would expose him to a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture.38 9. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, therefore concludes that the extradition of Mr. Gharsallah to Tunisia would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 34 35 36 37 38 GE.18-15280 See N.B.-M. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/47/D/347/2008), para. 9.9, and R.A.Y. v. Morocco, para. 7.5. See Ktiti v. Morocco (CAT/C/46/D/419/2010), para. 8.6. See Agiza v. Sweden (CAT/C/34/D/233/2003), para. 13.4, and Fadel v. Switzerland (CAT/C/53/D/450/2011), para. 7.8. See also general comment No. 4 (2017), para. 45. See Alhaj Ali v. Morocco, para. 8.8. See also general comment No. 4, para. 29 (f). See R.A.Y. v. Morocco, para. 7.5. 9