Advance unedited version CAT/C/63/DR/698/2015 examinations and subsequent treatment. It further considers that the State party has assessed sufficiently the complainant’s personal experiences and the foreseeable risk/consequences of returning her to the Russian Federation. 9.10 On the basis of all the information submitted by the complainant and the State party, including on the general situation of human rights in the Russian Federation, the Committee considers that, in the present case, the first complainant has not discharged the burden of proof39 as she has not adequately demonstrated the existence of substantial grounds for believing that her removal to the Russian Federation would expose her to a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention. Although the first complainant disagrees with the assessment of her accounts by the State party’s authorities, she has failed to demonstrate that the decision to refuse her asylum claim was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 10. Accordingly, the Committee against Torture, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, concludes that the complainants’ removal to the Russian Federation would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 39 See Sivagnanaratnam v. Denmark (CAT/C/51/D/429/2010), paras. 10.5 and 10.6. 15