CAT/C/64/D/693/2015 case, the Board also took into account the numerous diverging and contradictory statements that the complainant made during his asylum proceedings, including in Sweden, from where he was subsequently transferred to Denmark under the Dublin Regulation. 8.9 In the light of the above considerations, and on the basis of all the information submitted by both parties, including on the general situation of human rights in Afghanistan, the Committee considers that the complainant has not adequately demonstrated the existence of substantial grounds for believing that his return to Afghanistan, at present, would expose him to a real, foreseeable and personal risk of torture, as required under article 3 of the Convention. 9. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the complainant’s removal to Afghanistan by the State party would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 11