CAT/C/54/D/476/2011 danger of being subjected to torture if returned to the Gambia. In assessing this risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, p ursuant to article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention. 7.3 The Committee recalls that, according to its general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. However, the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable. The danger must nevertheless 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. The Committee recalls that, under the terms of general comment No. 1, it gives considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned, while at the same time it is not bound by such findings and instead has the power, provided by article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, of free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case. The Committee further recalls that, according to general co mment No. 1 (para. 5), the burden of presenting an arguable case lies with the author of a communication. 7.4 The Committee notes that the complaint is related to the danger of the complainant being tortured by the Gambian authorities, who were said to be looking for him in connection with his alleged involvement in the attempted coup of March 2006. The Committee takes note of the length of time that has elapsed since this event and recalls that the main reason for considering the complaint is to establish whether the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture if he were returned to the Gambia. 15 The Committee notes that the State party questioned the involvement of the complainant in the attempted coup of March 2006 in view of the fact that his account of the events lacked credibility and he did not give any satisfactory explanation for the contradictions noted by the authorities of the State party during the asylum proceedings. He provided no additional evidence to the Committee in support of the claim that he was wanted by the Gambian authorities in connection with the coup attempt of March 2006 16 or that he was still wanted by them almost eight years after the events. The complainant also failed to offer any convincing argument for the authenticity of the documents that he had submitted to the Committee. In this context, the Committee considers that the complainant has failed to substantiate a present and personal risk of being tortured by the State authorities if returned to the Gambia. 8. The Committee, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention, concludes that the complainant’s removal to the Gambia by the State party would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. __________________ 15 16 8/8 Communication No. 61/1996, X, Y and Z v. Sweden, Views adopted on 6 May 1998, para. 11.2. The only document submitted in this respect is a copy of the AWOL military arrest warrant dated April 2006 (the authenticity of which is contested by the State party), which indicates that the complainant is wanted for desertion but not in connection with the attempted coup d ’état. GE.15-11116