CAT/C/51/D/434/2010 8.4 The main complainant claims that he will be detained and tortured if returned to China because of his religious activities. The Committee notes the State party’s submission that in the present case the complainant has not provided credible evidence and has failed to substantiate that there is a foreseeable, real and personal risk that he would be subjected to torture by the authorities if returned to China, that his claims have been reviewed by the competent domestic authorities, in accordance with the domestic legislation, and that the latter were “not satisfied that the author was a person to whom the State party had protection obligations under the Refugee Convention” or that he will “face any risk of harm for reasons of religion if he returns to China now or in the foreseeable future”. The Committee notes that in so doing, the State party authorities took the general human rights situation in China into account. While not underestimating the concerns that may legitimately be expressed with respect to the current human rights situation in China concerning freedom of religion, the State party authorities and courts have established that the situation in that country does not in itself suffice to establish that the complainant’s forced return there would entail a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 8.5 In this connection, the Committee, irrespective of the question regarding the complainant’s affiliation with the church, is of the view that he has not submitted sufficient evidence to substantiate that he would risk being subjected to torture by the authorities if returned to China. It notes that the complainant has only submitted a copy of the summons and detention warrant issued by the Chinese authorities on 18 January 2010 and on 1 February 2010, respectively; however these documents contain no information whatsoever as to the reasons for which they were issued. Moreover, no medical evidence is available in the case file corroborating the complainant’s account of having experienced torture while in detention. In any event, the Committee recalls that, although past events may be of relevance, the principle aim of its assessment is to determine whether the complainant currently runs a risk of being subjected to torture upon his arrival in China.20 9. In the circumstances and in the absence of any other pertinent information on file, the Committee finds that the complainants have failed to provide sufficient evidence that in case of the main complainant’s return to his country of origin, he 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 removal of the complainants to China by the State party would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. [Adopted in English, French and Spanish, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic, Chinese and Russian as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.] 20 16 Reference is made to communication No. 61/1996, X.,Y. and Z. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 6 May 1998, para. 11.2.