CAT/C/71/D/807/2017 the event of a violation of the complainants’ Convention rights in that country, they would be deprived of the legal option of recourse to the Committee for protection of any kind. 15 9.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 4 (2017), which states, first, that the non-refoulement obligation exists whenever there are “substantial grounds” for believing that the person concerned would be in danger of being subjected to torture in the State to which he or she is facing deportation, either as an individual or as a member of a group which may be at risk of being tortured in the State of destination and, second, that the Committee’s practice has been to determine that “substantial grounds” exist whenever the risk is “foreseeable, personal, present and real”.16 The Committee further recalls that the burden of proof is upon the author of the communication, who must present an arguable case, that is, submit substantiated arguments showing that the danger of being subjected to torture is foreseeable, personal, present and real. However, when the complainant is in a situation where he or she cannot elaborate on his or her case, the burden of proof is reversed and the State party concerned must investigate the allegations and verify the information on which the communication is based.17 The Committee gives considerable weight to the findings of fact of the organs of the State party concerned; however, it is not bound by such findings and will make a free assessment of the information available to it in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, taking into account all the circumstances relevant to each case. 18 9.5 In the present case, the Committee takes note of the complainants’ argument that, if deported to the Islamic Republic of Iran, they would be considered as traitors for having provided humanitarian aid to Kurdish communities in the Islamic Republic of Iran and would therefore once again face a risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. It also notes the complainants’ fear that the documents detailing their activities and found by the Iranian authorities might aggravate their situation and that the aid that they provided could be perceived by the Iranian Government as a political activity. The Committee also notes the complainants’ belief that the State party did not properly consider X’s account of her sexual abuse, overlooking the fact that torture victims with post-traumatic stress disorder often struggle to recount traumatic events, and based its decisions on the incorrect information contained in two anonymous letters of 10 June and 17 September 2013, in which the complainants were accused of using false identities. 9.6 The Committee notes that the Swiss authorities considered that the descriptions of handing out goods and the number of the complainants’ trips to the Kurdish region were vague. For example, X was unable to say with certainty how many times her father had accompanied her. In addition, the Committee notes that the Federal Office for Migration also found X’s statements about the aid provided to the Kurds, her arrest and sexual abuse and her description of the conditions of detention to be inconsistent and superficial, partly illogical and limited to what is “generally known”. The Committee further notes the State party’s assessment that: (a) during her interviews, X did not give any specific details about her detention but cried and recounted the ill-treatment and acts of torture that she claimed to have suffered; (b) X’s statements about her diary were vague and contradictory and the Iranian authorities would have no way of knowing to whom the diary belonged, as X’s name was not explicitly mentioned in it; (c) X added facts to the medical report that she had not mentioned at the hearings; (d) the medical reports stating that X had post-traumatic stress disorder were irrelevant because it could not be said that her condition resulted from the acts of persecution that she claimed to have experienced; (e) the statements made by Y regarding the humanitarian aid and his arrest and detention were implausible; (f) there was no mention of political acts carried out by the complainants in the Islamic Republic of Iran and political acts carried out against the Islamic Republic of Iran in Switzerland; (g) the complainants’ allegations that the Swiss authorities relied largely on anonymous reports that X had a sister living in Switzerland were never substantiated, as the alleged sister refused to undergo a DNA test; (h) Golnaz Tarik never disputed that she was related to the complainants; (i) the complainants were apparently unable to prove their identity; and (j) doubts also remained 15 16 17 18 GE.21-12363 Tahmuresi v. Switzerland (CAT/C/53/D/489/2012), para. 7.7; and D.R. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/63/D/673/2015), para. 7.2. Committee against Torture, general comment No. 4, para. 11. Ibid., para. 38. Ibid., para. 50. 9