CAT/C/63/D/703/2015 serious human rights violations in Dagestan. It recalls that it expressed its concerns in its concluding observations following the examination of the fifth periodic report of the Russian Federation in 2012, citing numerous, ongoing and consistent reports of serious human rights abuses inflicted by or at the instigation or with the consent or acquiescence of public officials or other persons acting in official capacities in the North Caucasus, including torture and ill-treatment, abductions, enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings. The Committee also expressed its concern about the failure of the authorities in the Russian Federation to investigate and punish perpetrators of such abuses. 34 However, the Committee considers that, even if it were assumed that I.U.K. was tortured by or with the acquiescence of the authorities in Dagestan in the past, it does not automatically follow that he would still be at risk of being subjected to torture if presently returned to the Russian Federation. 8.10 The Committee recalls that the burden of proof is upon the complainants who have to present an arguable case — i.e. to submit circumstantiated arguments showing that the danger of being subjected to torture is foreseeable, present, personal and real, unless the complainants are in a situation in which they cannot elaborate on their case. 35 In the light of the above considerations, and on the basis of all the information submitted by the complainants and the State party, including on the general situation of human rights in Dagestan, the Committee considers that the complainants have not adequately demonstrated the existence of substantial grounds for believing that I.U.K.’s return to the Russian Federation at present would expose him to a real, specific and personal risk of torture, as required under article 3 of the Convention. 9. Accordingly, the Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, is of the view that the return of I.U.K. to the Russian Federation would not constitute a violation by the State party of article 3 (1) of the Convention. 10. As the cases of R.R.K. and the complainants’ three minor children are largely dependent upon I.U.K.’s case, the Committee does not find it necessary to consider those cases individually. 34 35 See M.B. et al. v. Denmark, para. 9.7. General comment No. 4, para. 38. 13