CAT/C/58/D/608/2014 7.10 In the light of the above, the Committee recalls that, according to its general comment No. 1, the burden of presenting an arguable case lies with the author of a communication (para. 5). In the Committee’s opinion, in the present case, the complainant has not discharged the burden of proof.15 8. Consequently, the Committee considers that the evidence and circumstances invoked by the complainant do not show sufficient grounds for believing that he would run a real, foreseeable, personal and present risk of being subjected to torture in case of his removal to Sri Lanka. The Committee thus considers that the material on the file does not enable it to conclude that the return of the author would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 9. 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. 15 See communication No. 429/2010, Sivagnanaratnam v. Denmark, decision adopted on 11 November 2013, paras. 10.5 and 10.6. 11