CAT/C/64/D/641/2014 Committee also notes the State party’s observation that an assessment of the potential risks the complainant would face if presently returned to Côte d’Ivoire has to be made and that the following factors are of relevance to that assessment: (a) he has not been politically engaged at any particularly high level nor has he had any particular standing within the Ivorian Popular Front; and (b) there are credibility gaps in the complainant’s initial asylum statement and in the subsequent domestic asylum proceedings that give reasons to question the veracity of his account of the alleged need for protection. The complainant, inter alia, (a) was able to leave Côte d’Ivoire and travel to France and the Russian Federation, and voluntarily returned to his home country from France, without attracting the attention of the Ivorian authorities; (b) was able to successfully apply for and collect his national passport during the time he was allegedly in hiding; (c) presented evidence of a very simple nature and, therefore, of low probative value, in support of his claim that the Ivorian authorities were still looking for him after his departure from Côte d’Ivoire in April 2012; (d) provided inconsistent information regarding who paid for his release in the spring of 2011; and (e) did not present until a later stage of the asylum proceedings the account of having been followed and wiretapped in Côte d’Ivoire, and subjected to two attempted kidnappings shortly after his return from France in February 2012. 8.7 The Committee recalls that it must ascertain whether the complainant currently runs a risk of being subjected to torture if he were returned to Côte d’Ivoire.23 The Committee notes that the complainant has had ample opportunity to provide supporting evidence and more details about his claims at the national level to the Migration Agency, the Migration Court and the Migration Court of Appeal, but that the documentary evidence and the circumstances invoked have not allowed the national asylum authorities to conclude that he has sufficiently shown that the alleged risk of torture if he returned to Côte d’Ivoire fulfilled the requirement of being foreseeable, real and personal. The Committee further observes that, even if it were to set aside the inconsistencies in the complainant’s account of his past experiences in Côte d’Ivoire and accept his statements as true, the complainant has not provided any evidence that the Ivorian authorities have been looking for him in the recent past, or were otherwise interested in him beyond the immediate aftermath of the highly turbulent period around and after the elections in Côte d’Ivoire in autumn 2010 and spring 2011. The Committee notes that there are reports of serious human rights violations, including the use of torture, in Côte d’Ivoire, which is a party to the present Convention, and that, according to information in the public domain, around 200 supporters of Laurent Gbagbo, arrested since 2011 for crimes allegedly committed during the post-electoral violence, are still detained awaiting trial.24 However, the Committee considers that, even if it were assumed that the complainant was tortured by or with the acquiescence of the Ivorian authorities in the past, it does not automatically follow that he would still be at risk of being subjected to torture if returned to Côte d’Ivoire at present. It recalls in this connection that ill-treatment suffered in the past is only one element to be taken into account by the Committee, because, for the purposes of article 3 of the Convention, the individual concerned must face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being tortured in the country to which he or she is returned. 8.8 The Committee further recalls that the burden of proof is upon the author of the complaint, who has to present an arguable case, i.e. submit circumstantiated arguments showing that the danger of being subjected to torture is foreseeable, present, personal and real, unless the complainant is in a situation where he or she cannot elaborate on his or her case. 25 In the light of the above considerations and on the basis of all the information submitted by the complainant and the State party, including on the general situation of human rights in Côte d’Ivoire, the Committee considers that the complainant has not adequately demonstrated the existence of substantial grounds for believing that his return to Côte d’Ivoire at present would expose him to a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture, 23 24 25 10 See, for example, G.B.M. v. Sweden (CAT/C/49/D/435/2010), para. 7.7. See, for example, United States Department of State, “Côte d’Ivoire 2017 human rights report”, available at www.state.gov/documents/organization/277235.pdf; and Amnesty International Report 2017/18. The State of the World’s Human Rights, available from www.amnesty.org/en/countries/africa/cote-d-ivoire/report-cote-divoire/. See general comment No. 4, para. 38.