CAT/C/59/D/666/2015 flagrant violations of human rights does not mean that a person might not be subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances. 8.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention, according to which the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. While the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable (para. 6), the Committee recalls that the burden of proof generally falls on the complainant, who must present an arguable case that he or she faces a foreseeable, real and personal risk. 12 Although, under the terms of its general comment No. 1, the Committee is free to assess the facts on the basis of the full set of circumstances in every case, considerable weight is given to the findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned (para. 9). 8.5 The Committee notes the complainant’s claim that his forcible removal to Sri Lanka would amount to a violation of his rights under article 3 of the Convention, as he would be exposed to a risk of being detained and tortured by the Sri Lankan authorities because his brother was shot in 2005 by persons whom he understood to be part of the Sri Lankan army; because of his association with the Tamil National Alliance for reasons of family connection with its Member of Parliament, S.Y.; because of his status as a failed asylum seeker of Tamil ethnicity; and because he left the country illegally. 8.6 The Committee takes note of the State party’s submission that, in the present case, the complainant has not provided credible evidence and has failed to substantiate that there is a foreseeable, real and personal risk that he would be subjected to torture by the authorities if he is returned to Sri Lanka, and that his claims were reviewed by the competent domestic authorities in accordance with domestic legislation and taking into account the current human rights situation in Sri Lanka. 8.7 In this regard, the Committee notes the State party’s submission that the complainant’s claim that he could be harmed in connection with the shooting of his brother in 2005 by persons belonging to the Sri Lankan army was thoroughly assessed. It also notes that the complainant’s brother was questioned on only one occasion, in 2009, in relation to the incident, that he has had no ongoing problems and that he returned to their home town in the Eastern Province. 8.8 The Committee notes the complainant’s claim that he was and would be targeted upon return to Sri Lanka because of his involvement and association with the Tamil National Alliance. However, the Committee notes that the State party’s authorities did not accept that the complainant had worked with or for, or was associated with, the Member of Parliament S.Y. It also notes the State party’s submission concerning the complainant’s inability to provide details about the Alliance and to explain why he worked for it; the inconsistent evidence as to the length of his involvement with the Alliance; the inability to identify the political party to which S.Y. belonged; the failure to refer to any association or work with S.Y. or the Alliance at his entry interview, which was explained as forgetfulness; the inconsistent evidence as to his familial relationship with the politician; and as to when and on how many occasions he had been threatened. It further notes that the State party’s responsible organs had thoroughly evaluated the material evidence presented by the complainant and found it to lack credibility. 12 8 2006; No. 333/2007, T.I. v. Canada, decision adopted on 15 November 2010; No. 344/2008, A.M.A. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 12 November 2010; and No. 550/2013, S.K. and others v. Sweden, decision adopted on 8 May 2015, para. 7.3. See also communication No. 203/2002, A.R. v. Netherlands, decision adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 7.3.