CAT/C/58/D/599/2014 8.14 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1, according to which the burden of presenting an arguable case lies with the complainant (para. 5). In the Committee’s opinion, in the present case, the complainant has not discharged this burden of proof. 21 Furthermore, the complainant has not demonstrated that the State party’s authorities failed to conduct a proper investigation into his allegations. 22 9. Consequently, the Committee considers that the evidence and circumstances invoked by the complainant do not constitute sufficient grounds for believing that he would run a real, foreseeable, personal and present risk of being subjected to torture upon return to Sri Lanka.23 The Committee thus considers that the material on file does not enable it to conclude that the return of the author would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 10. In the light of the foregoing, 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. 21 22 23 14 See communication No. 429/2010, Sivagnanaratnam v. Denmark, decision adopted on 11 November 2013, paras. 10.5 and 10.6. See communication No. 571/2013, M.S. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 10 August 2015, para. 7.9. Ibid., para. 8.