CAT/C/62/D/685/2015 measures taken by Armenia to address overcrowding and improve the conditions of detention in prisons. 13 The Committee notes that the complainants’ allegations regarding the prison conditions are of a general nature. The Committee is of the opinion that they have therefore not established either that the conditions in a detention centre or prison in which the male complainant may be detained would generally amount to torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention, or that the circumstances of his case are such that he would be subjected to treatment falling under that provision. 8.11 The Committee notes that, in their comments on the State party’s observations, the complainants also argued that their asylum application had not been examined with due care by the authorities of the State party, as it had been decided upon within eight working days by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the complainants did not request that their application be examined under the extended application procedure. The Committee notes that there is no information on file indicating that the authorities of the State party failed to take any of the complainants’ grounds in their application for asylum into account. The Committee therefore finds that the complainants have failed to establish that their application was not examined with due care. 9. On the basis of the above, and in the light of the material before it, the Committee considers that the complainants have not provided sufficient evidence to enable it to conclude that their forcible removal to their country of origin would expose them to a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention. 10. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, decides that the complainants’ removal to Armenia by the State party would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 13 10 See CAT/C/ARM/CO/4, para. 26.