CAT/C/65/D/761/2016 in fighting against the Sri Lanka Army. There is also no evidence of his family’s involvement with the Tamil Tigers except for the one time his brother carried out border protection duty, which was followed by his brother’s alleged disappearance. The Committee also observes that the complainant’s wife and children were released from the Chettikulam camp in 2012 and continue to reside in their house in Manthuvil. Even though the complainant is making allegations of harassment of him while he was in the camp, and of his family after his departure from Sri Lanka, these allegations have not been substantiated by any documentary evidence. The Committee notes that other than a poor quality black-and-white photograph of his allegedly murdered father-in-law, the complainant has not been able to provide any evidence that may suggest how he died or that his death had anything to do with the complainant or his escape from the Chettikulam camp. 9.7 With regard to the complainant’s allegation that his claims have not been properly assessed by the domestic authorities, the Committee recalls its general comment No. 4 (2017), in which it states that each case should be individually, impartially and independently examined by the State party through competent administrative or judicial authorities, in conformity with essential procedural safeguards, notably the guarantee of a prompt and transparent process, a review of the deportation decision and a suspensive effect of the appeal (para. 13). In the present case, however, the Committee notes, that the complainant has not shown how the fact that the above-mentioned officials were appointed and paid by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship affected their impartiality and independence in assessing his case, or that the assessment in question was clearly arbitrary, unfair or amounted to a denial of justice for him. 10. The Committee refers to its general comment No. 4 (2017), according to which the burden of proof is upon the author of the communication, who must present an arguable case (para. 38). In the Committee’s opinion, in the present case, the complainant has not discharged that burden of proof. Furthermore, the complainant has not demonstrated that the authorities of the State party failed to conduct a proper investigation into his allegations. 11. The Committee therefore concludes that the complainant has not adduced sufficient grounds to enable it to believe that he would run a real, foreseeable, personal and present risk of being subjected to torture upon his return to Sri Lanka. 12. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the complainant’s removal to Sri Lanka by the State party would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 10