CAT/C/55/D/571/2013 State party’s response that such an examination was not relevant because, whatever its outcome, it could not serve to prove that the complainant had been subjected to abuse specifically by the Taliban. In particular, the Committee takes into account the State party’s allegations of inconsistency in the complainant and his spouse’s statements about the scope of the injuries suffered by the complainant as a consequence of the abuse, and the State party’s overall lack of credibility of the complainant’s story, in particular as regards the purpose of kidnapping and whether it was the Taliban who had kidnapped the complainant and subjected him to abuse in connection with that purpose. 7.7 The Committee observes that, even assuming that the complainant had been tortured, the alleged instances of torture did not occur in the recent past22 and the question is whether he currently runs a risk of torture if returned to Afghanistan. It does not necessarily follow that, several years after the alleged events occurred, he would still be at risk of being subjected to torture if returned to his country of origin. The Committee also observes that the complainant has not adduced any evidence that the Afghan authorities or his alleged torturers had been looking for him in the recent past. 7.8 The Committee notes the complainant’s claim that he would risk being subjected to torture if deported to Afghanistan, because the Taliban would again attempt to recruit him for their cause. The Committee also notes the State party’s submission that it cannot be found as a fact that the complainant had been kidnapped by the Taliban and that it perceives the kidnapping as an isolated criminal act. The Committee observes that no material in the file allows it to establish that the complainant had been subjected to torture by State authorities or that the complainant would be unable to obtain the protection of the Afghan authorities against the risk of torture, over six years after the alleged abuse and torture occurred. 7.9 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1, according to which the burden of presenting an arguable case lies with the author of a communication. 23 In the Committee’s opinion, the complainant has not discharged that burden of proof.24 Further, the complainant has not demonstrated that the authorities of the State party, in this case, Denmark, failed to conduct a proper investigation into his allegations. 8. 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 return to Afghanistan. 9. 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 complainant’s removal to Afghanistan by the State party would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 22 23 24 See the Committee’s general comment No. 1, para. 8 (b). Ibid., para. 5. See communication 429/2010, M.S. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 11 November 2013, paras. 10.5 and 10.6. 15