CAT/C/41/D/332/2007 Page 8 7.4 The Committee has noted the claim that the complainant would be tortured if deported to Azerbaijan on account of his past political activities. It also notes that he claims to have been tortured in the past and that, in support of his claims, he provides medical reports from a hospital in Stockholm. These reports are not definitive, nor completely coinciding in their diagnosis. The psychiatric report states that it is possible that M.M. has psychiatric problems consistent with a posttraumatic stress disorder, while the forensic report states that the findings of the examination can strengthen/verify that torture has taken place. 7.5 Even if the Committee were to accept the claim that the complainant was subjected to torture in the past, the question is whether he currently runs a risk of torture if returned to Azerbaijan. It does not necessarily follow that, several years after the alleged events occurred, he would still currently be at risk of being subjected to torture if returned to Azerbaijan in the near future. 7.6 As regards the complainant’s past political activities, the Committee recalls that it is disputed that the complainant was a member and/or employee of the Musavat party. Furthermore, even if he was a confirmed member or employee of the party, it is not clear that his activities were of such significance as to currently attract the interest of the authorities if returned to Azerbaijan. In his first asylum interview in the State party, the complainant explained that his activities for the party consisted in the handing out of flyers and newspapers. In addition, there are contradictions in the complainant’s statements at different stages of the proceedings concerning the regime of his probationary release (above, paragraph 4.3). Further, the evidence submitted by the complainant does not suggest that he is currently being subject to any charges in Azerbaijan. The Committee also notes that the State party affirms that the complainant was never a member of or worked for the Musavat party, he was not held in custody, and he is not wanted in Azerbaijan. The Committee recalls that in these circumstances and pursuant to its General Comment No. 1, the burden to present an arguable case is on the complainant4. In the Committee’s opinion, the complainant has not discharged this burden of proof. 7.7 In light of all the above, the Committee is not persuaded that the complainant would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture if returned to Azerbaijan and therefore concludes that his removal to that country would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 8. 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 removal to Azerbaijan by the State party would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. [Adopted in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic and Chinese as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.] ----4 A/53/44, annex IX, CAT General Comment No 1, paragraph 5.