CAT/C/40/D/309/2006 Page 10 probable. The risk need not be highly probable, but 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 personal. 8.4 The Committee notes the claim that R. K. would be tortured if deported to Azerbaijan on account of his past political activities, his activities as a journalist and a statement he gave before an Azeri court in 2004. It also notes that he claims to have been tortured in the past and in support of his claims has provided recent medical reports which, as highlighted by the State party, were not presented before the Migration Board The Committee observes that, although it is undisputed that R. K. was a member of the Musavat party, he concedes that he was not in a leading position in the party and has failed to adduce evidence about the conduct of any political activity of such significance as would still attract the interest of the Azerbaijani authorities. He has also failed to adduce evidence of his involvement in the demonstrations that accompanied the elections of 2003. He admits that he was not convicted of any charge following these demonstrations, and even if it were accepted, despite lack of evidence in this regard, that he had made a statement during the subsequent trial with respect to his involvement in the demonstrations, he was not arrested as a result thereof and is not wanted by the authorities. Indeed he has never been charged with, nor prosecuted for, any criminal offence in Azerbaijan. 8.5 As to his claims of past torture, the Committee notes, as highlighted by the State party, that R. K. has only provided general information and no specific detailed information on incidents of torture or ill-treatment. It observes that, although he claims to have been arrested on three occasions, he was neither tortured nor ill-treated during these arrests. Even the medical reports, provided late in 2007, are lacking in detail, despite claims to the contrary, and refer to “repeated incidents of violence” in connection with demonstrations and the fact that R. K. was subjected to “threats, assault, and abuse …”. While recognising that the results of the forensic report which, of 22 October 2007, “may possibly support his report of assault and torture” and that, the psychiatric report of 23 October 2007, confirms that he suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), the question is whether he currently runs a risk of torture if returned to Azerbaijan. It does not automatically follow that, several years after the alleged events occurred, he would still be at risk of being subjected to torture if returned to Azerbaijan in the near future.8 8.6 In the Committee's view, the complainants have failed to adduce any other tangible evidence to demonstrate that R.K. would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture if returned to Azerbaijan. For these reasons, and in light of the fact that the other complainants’ case is closely linked to that of R. K., the Committee concludes that the remaining complainants have failed to substantiate their claim that they would also face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture upon their return to Azerbaijan and therefore concludes that their removal to that country would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 8 Communication No. 245/2004, S.S.S. v Canada, Views of 16 November 2005 and Communication No. 126/1999, Haad v Sitzerland, Views of 10 May 2000.