CAT/C/41/D/306/2006 Page 10 cannot be considered to be in danger of being subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances. 8.3 The Committee recalls its General Comment No.1 on article 3, which states that the Committee is obliged to assess whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture were he/she to be expelled, returned or extradited, and that the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. While the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable, it must be personal and present. In this regard, in previous decisions, the Committee has determined that the risk of torture must be foreseeable, real and personal8. The Committee also recalls from General Comment No.1 that considerable weight will be given, to exercising the Committee’s jurisdiction pursuant to article 3 of the Convention, to findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned; but that the Committee is not bound by such findings and instead has the power, provided by article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, of free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case. 8.4 The Committee notes that in its arguments against the claims advanced, the State party makes reference to information presented in a report, dated 19 March 2007, provided to it by the Swedish Embassy in Ankara, following an investigation by a person whose name has not been reveal by the State party. It also notes that this investigation took place after the termination of domestic proceedings and that the author has not had an opportunity either to contest the information provided therein or to challenge the investigator whose name has not been revealed before the domestic authorities. For these reasons, the Committee considers that the State party should not have relied upon this information in considering whether there is a real and personal risk of torture for the complainants, and indeed the Committee itself does not intend to take the contents of this report into account in its consideration of this communication. 8.5 The Committee notes the claim that there is a risk that E. J. would be tortured or ill-treated if deported to Azerbaijan, because of his past political activities, and the claim that he was previously subjected to torture and ill-treatment. On the latter issue, the Committee notes that the complainants have failed to adduce any evidence that E. J. was subjected to torture or ill-treatment in Azerbaijan and also notes their sole response to the State party’s argument on this point that the Committee should be forward looking in assessing whether there is a current risk of torture or ill-treatment. 8.6 As to E. J.’s alleged involvement in political activities, the Committee notes that although he was a member of the ADP, it does not appear that he was in a leading position, and thus would not attract the particular interest of the Azerbaijani authorities if returned. Nor is there any evidence that he has been involved, while in Sweden, in any activity which would attract the interest of the same authorities four years after he left Azerbaijan. In this regard, the Committee also notes that the activities in which he was alleged to have been involved took place between January 2001 and May 2004 – more than four years ago. It notes further that a number of persons defined by the CoE as 8 Communication No. 296/2006, E. V. I. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 1 May 2007; Communication No. 270 and 271/2005, E. R. K. and Y. K. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 30 April 2007.