CAT/C/53/D/520/2012 security police’s continued interest in her whereabouts; and the enforced disappearance of her husband. 8.6 The Committee notes that the complainant has not submitted any objective evidence whatsoever to substantiate that she would be at risk of being subjected to torture by the authorities if returned to Ethiopia. The Committee notes, in particular, the complainant’s statement that all her life she has been a person with no political affiliations. It further takes note of the State party’s observation that the complainant has made no attempt whatsoever to explain before the domestic authorities the contradictions in her claims as to her alleged arrest and detention in Ethiopia in 2005 and 2006, the Ethiopian authorities’ alleged continued interest in her whereabouts and activities, and in her husband’s arrest and his current situation and whereabouts. Those contradictions were not clarified by the complainant in her communication to the Committee either. The Committee notes that the complainant had ample opportunity to substantiate and clarify her claims at the domestic level before the RPD and within the PRRA procedure, and in the context of the present communication. Nor has the complainant provided the Committee with any objective documentary evidence, such as a copy of her summons or a detention warrant, in support of her account of events and claims. 8.7 Furthermore, the Committee recalls that the occurrence of human rights violations in his/her country of origin is not sufficient, in itself, for it to be concluded that a complainant, personally, runs a risk of torture. The Committee notes that the complainant does not claim that she has ever been personally subjected to torture or any kind of ill-treatment or punishment in Ethiopia prior to her departure to Canada, with the exception of her claim concerning her husband’s alleged enforced disappearance. In addition, it also notes that she has not submitted any information or arguments to substantiate that she, personally, would be at risk of torture if she returned to Ethiopia.26 9. In the circumstances, and in the absence of any other pertinent information on file, the Committee finds that the complainant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to indicate that, in the event of her forcible return to her country of origin, she would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being tortured. 10. Accordingly, the Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, concludes that the complainant’s return to Ethiopia would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention by the State party. 26 See for example communication No. 243/2004, S.A. v. Sweden, decision of inadmissibility of 6 May 2004, para. 4.2. 13