CAT/C/44/D/355/2008 divulgence of State secrets during the asylum application procedure has exposed him to an imminent danger of torture if he returns. 10.8 Having taken into account the arguments put forward by the parties, the Committee finds that the complainant has not shown evidence of a real, present and foreseeable risk. The Committee considers that the State party’s opinion that the complainant’s account is inconsistent, in particular with regard to the successive versions that he gives of his involvement in secret missions for the Congolese Government, is well founded. It is indeed hard to believe that if the complainant was involved in such operations he would at the same time have been persecuted by pro-government militia. The Committee notes that the burden is on the complainant to prove that his fears are real and personal. The Committee further recalls its general comment and its jurisprudence,7 whereby the burden is upon the complainant to present an arguable case. In its general comment, the Committee also emphasized that it would give considerable weight to findings of fact made by organs of the State party, but that it retains the power of free assessment of the facts and evidence of the circumstances of each case.8 It appears in the present case that the complainant has been unable to put forward any counter-arguments to the fact that the peace agreements and the amnesty laws adopted in the Congo brought about a new situation, which would nullify any fears, whether well founded or not, that the complainant might have; that no judicial proceedings against former rebels have been reported by independent sources since the laws were adopted; that the complainant apparently met with no difficulties during the two years that followed his readmission in the armed forces of the Nguessou Government; and lastly that he has apparently not shown that his own situation was any different from that of other persons covered by the amnesty law. The Committee notes finally that the documents submitted by the complainant were examined in detail by the domestic courts of the State party,9 which, in the light of their examination, established that there was room for serious doubt as to their authenticity. 10.9 The Committee further recalls that the risk of arrest does not in itself constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention.10 In this respect, the complainant’s allegations that he risks arrest for desertion would not of themselves entail a violation, since he has been unable to show that he is in personal danger of being subjected to torture or persecuted if he is deported to the Congo. 10.10 Given all the information that has been transmitted to it, the Committee finds that the complainant has not given sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he is at personal, real and foreseeable risk of being subjected to torture if he is deported to his country of origin. 11. The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, concludes that the deportation of the complainant to the Congo would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. [Adopted in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the French text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic and Chinese as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.] 7 8 9 10 10 Communication No. 282/2005, S.P.A. v. Canada, decision adopted on 23 November 2005, para. 7.5; communication No. 293/2006, M.J.A.M.O. v. Canada, decision adopted on 9 May 2008, para. 10.4. Communication No. 195/2002, Brada v. France, decision adopted on 17 May 2005, para. 13.2. See, in this regard, communication No. 293/2006, M.J.A.M.O. v. Canada, decision adopted on 9 May 2008, para. 10.5. Communication No. 57/1996, P.Q.L. v. Canada, decision adopted on 17 November 1997, para. 10.5; communication No. 65/1997, I.A.O. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 6 May 1998, para 14.5. GE.10-42782