CAT/C/39/D/303/2006 Page 9 that these articles refer to information the complainant made public in 2001, and that he has failed to show how this information may put him in danger if he is to return to Azerbaijan. 8.5 As to the possibility of the petitioner suffering torture at the hands of the State upon his return to Azerbaijan, the Committee has taken due note of his claim that he was previously detained and tortured by members of the Azeri police. It further observes that the petitioner provided medical reports attesting to injuries that were consistent with the circumstances described by him. However, the Committee observes that even if the complainant was detained and tortured in Azerbaijan in the past, it does not automatically follow that, four 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. Additionally, while the Committee acknowledges that the complainant suffers from a kidney ailment, he has not clearly shown that this condition is the result of previous torture nor that appropriate medical care would be unavailable to him in Azerbaijan. 8.6 Concerning the fears about his relationship with his uncle, it would appear, and this is uncontested, that the later freely travels between the Russian Federation and Azerbaijan without any restriction. Thus, his relationship with S. M. would not appear to have any negative consequences affecting the complainant’s return. The Committee notes the State party’s statement that the author is neither charged with a crime in Azerbaijan nor subject to an arrest warrant by Azeri authorities. Consequently, it finds that the complainant has not provided evidence in support of his contention that he would run a real risk of arrest upon return. 8.7 The Committee notes that the complainant has provided a number of documents to the domestic authorities and to the Committee, which he claims corroborate his statement of the facts. The Committee recalls that the State party challenges the complainant's credibility and the authenticity of part of the documentation submitted by him, based on the investigations conducted by its embassy in Turkey. It observes that the State party has not challenged the authenticity of the medical certificates submitted by the author. The Committee recalls that according to its General Comment No. 1 the author has not satisfied his burden to present an arguable case. The Committee considers that the complainant has failed to validate the authenticity of the documents related to his political activities prior to leaving Azerbaijan. 9. For the abovementioned reasons, the Committee concludes that the complainant has failed to substantiate his claim that he would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture upon his return to Azerbaijan. 10. 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 removal of the complainant to Azerbaijan 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.] -----