CAT/C/59/D/666/2015 sufficient evidence to confirm or deny a relationship between the complainant and the Alliance Member of Parliament. 8.13 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). The Committee is of the view that, in the present case, the complainant has not discharged this burden of proof.18 Furthermore, the complainant has not demonstrated that the State party’s authorities that considered the case failed to conduct a proper investigation into his allegations.19 9. In the light of the foregoing, 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 upon return to Sri Lanka.20 The Committee therefore 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. 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. 18 19 20 10 See communication No. 429/2010, Sivagnanaratnam v. Denmark, decision adopted on 11 November 2013, paras. 10.5 and 10.6. See, for example, communication No. 571/2013, M.S. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 10 August 2015, para. 7.9. Ibid., para. 8.