Committee to their decisions. It recalls that the complainant claims that he risks torture upon expulsion to the country of his nationality as a consequence of his efforts to sell land allegedly inherited by him and his refusal to cooperate with PLO. He claims he is considered a traitor by PLO, and that PLO has an excellent relationship with the Jordanian authorities who may torture him or possibly hand him over to PLO. In response, the State party observes that at his initial interview, the complainant only referred to land problems, making no mention of having been ill-treated by PLO as an alleged spy. Instead, he claimed to have been threatened by a Lithuanian “Arab mafia” and his own family in Jordan. From the information submitted by the complainant himself, he seems to have gone to Sweden in order to sell the land in Israel and invest the proceeds in Sweden. In the State party’s view, his asylum application was primarily motivated by economic interests, which are not in themselves grounds for which protection under the Convention is afforded. 4.11As to whether any risk of torture currently exists, the complainant’s alleged torture at the hands of PLO (an issue not initially raised) occurred some 30 years ago, a fact which must by now be deemed to lack relevance. Nor has the complainant in any way substantiated, beyond mere statements, that he was arrested and tortured by PLO in Lebanon and Syria. While he claimed he had only been in Jordan once for a short period, Jordan (with a large Palestinian population) remains his country of nationality and a wish not to reside there cannot ipso facto confer entitlement to protection in another country. 4.12The State party observes that the complainant also stated that he had held a Jordanian passport for 20 consecutive years until it was taken from him by an “Arab mafia” in return for the forged passport. The complainant stated that it was renewed every fifth year, even though Jordanian intelligence allegedly knew even then of his imprisonment in the 1970s and the accusation of spying for Israel. These circumstances relating to the complainant’s passport undermine the credibility of his claims. 4.13The State party notes that at no time (including in the complaint) has the complainant claimed that he had been politically active or that he had worked in any way against Jordan or the Palestinian cause. Nor has he submitted to the Committee any information substantiating his claim that he will be “persecuted and tortured by the Jordanians and possibly handed over to the PLO”. The State party thus maintains that the complainant’s assertions about the consequences of his efforts to sell the land allegedly inherited by him amount to no more than mere theory and suspicion. 4.14Taking these circumstances in their totality, the State party submits that the complainant has failed to show that there is a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture in the event of his return to Jordan, and accordingly there is no issue arising under article 3 of the Convention. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s submissions 5.1By letter of 30 December 2002, the complainant responds to the State party’s submissions, contending that the reason he was arrested in Lebanon in 1971 was that the Israeli intelligence service recruited him prior to his departure to study in Lebanon. He alleges he was arrested after a week and identified by a Palestinian official, related to his mother’s first husband, who had been in Nablus prison when the complainant was in contact with Israeli intelligence authorities located in the same building. 5.2From 1995 until 1997, transactions concerning land in Israel could be, and were, undertaken in Jordan. The complainant argues that if he is returned to Jordan, he would be accused of seeking asylum in Sweden and selling land in Israel. The spying issue could also be reopened, which could result in a long prison sentence during which he could be mistreated by other inmates. If he is released upon his return, he could be pursued by Palestinian organizations in Jordan. He argues that Yasser Arafat himself could reopen his case. 5.3Finally, he alleges that the State party wishes to deport him as a matter of convenience, as his is a political case connected with both Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 6.1Before considering any claims contained in a complaint, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee further notes the State party’s acknowledgment that domestic remedies have been exhausted. 6.2As to the State party’s argument that the complaint is inadmissible for incompatibility with the provisions of the Convention, the Committee considers that the part of the complaint concerning the alleged possibility of being handed over to Palestinian authorities is mere speculation on the complainant’s part. The Committee observes that the possibility of any such handover, let alone any consequences that might follow, have not been substantiated in any form. Similarly, the complainant’s claims with respect to Jordan plainly fail to rise to the basic level of substantiation required for purposes of admissibility. As a result, the Committee considers, in accordance with article 22 of the Convention and rule 107 (b) of its revised rules of procedure, that the complaint is manifestly unfounded, and thus inadmissible. 7.Accordingly, the Committee decides: (a)That the complaint is inadmissible; (b)That this decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the complainant. Notes Annex VII