CAT/C/59/D/649/2015 not sufficient to establish that the complainant was or is wanted by the Sri Lankan authorities in relation to his past involvement in LTTE. Although the complainant disagrees with the assessment of his accounts by the State party’s authorities, he has failed to demonstrate that the decision to refuse him a protection visa was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice, taking into account the absence of comments by the complainant or his counsel on the State party’s observations, despite several reminders (see para. 5 above). 7.8 In the light of the above, the Committee recalls that, according to paragraph 5 of its general comment No. 1, the burden of presenting an arguable case lies with the author of a complaint. In the Committee’s opinion, in the present case, the complainant has not discharged that burden of proof. 22 8. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the decision of the State party to return the complainant to Sri Lanka does not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 22 12 See communication No. 429/2010, Sivagnanaratnam v. Denmark, decision adopted on 11 November 2013, paras. 10.5 and 10.6.