CAT/C/71/D/866/2018 general comment, that “substantial grounds” exist whenever the risk of torture is “foreseeable, personal, present and real” (para. 11). Indications of personal risk may include, but are not limited to: (a) the political affiliation or political activities of the complainant and/or the complainant’s family members; (b) previous torture; (c) clandestine escape from the country of origin following threats of torture; and (d) violence against women, including rape (para. 45). 8.5 The Committee recalls that the burden of proof is upon the author of the communication, who must present an arguable case, that is, submit substantiated arguments showing that the danger of being subjected to torture is foreseeable, present, personal and real. However, when complainants are in a situation where they cannot elaborate on their case, such as when they have demonstrated that they have no possibility of obtaining documentation relating to their allegation of torture or have been deprived of their liberty, the burden of proof is reversed and the State party concerned must investigate the allegations and verify the information on which the complaint is based. 29 The Committee gives considerable weight to findings of fact made by organs of the State party concerned; however, it is not bound by such findings. It follows that the Committee will make a free assessment of the information available to it in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, taking into account all the circumstances relevant to each case.30 8.6 The Committee takes note of the complainant’s claim that she would risk arrest and torture in Ethiopia due to her activities as a member of political opposition organizations in Ethiopia and in Switzerland. The Committee notes that to support these claims, the complainant mainly relies on reports on the human rights situation in Ethiopia and on the jurisprudence of the Federal Administrative Court. It also notes that the complainant believes that the asylum authorities erred in assessing the risk of persecution in her case. It further notes that the State party does not dispute that political dissidents may risk arrest and torture in Ethiopia but considers that the complainant has failed to demonstrate the existence of a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture should she be forcibly returned to Ethiopia. The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the complainant’s account of the persecution she allegedly suffered in Ethiopia is not credible and that her political activities in Switzerland are too marginal to attract the attention of the Ethiopian authorities. It also notes the State party’s claim, undisputed by the complainant, that the human rights situation in Ethiopia started to improve in 2018. 8.7 The Committee notes that the complainant does not provide any evidence to support her claims that she was subjected to torture or ill-treatment in Ethiopia, and that the State party has noted contradictions in the complainant’s statements regarding the treatment to which her former boyfriend had allegedly subjected her. Furthermore, the Committee recalls that ill-treatment suffered in the past is only one element to be taken into account when assessing the risk of violation of article 3 of the Convention. The principal aim of such assessment is to determine whether the complainant currently runs the risk of being subjected to torture upon her return to her country of origin. It does not automatically follow from the complainant’s former ill-treatment that she would still be at risk of being subjected to torture if she is returned to Ethiopia.31 8.8 The Committee notes that the complainant does not claim that the Ethiopian authorities attempted to prevent her from leaving Ethiopia. Neither has she submitted any evidence suggesting that Ethiopian authorities, such as the police or other security services, have been searching for her.32 Moreover, in 2012 she was able to renew her national passport at the Ethiopian embassy in Dubai. The Committee notes that the complainant has not provided any further explanations or evidence to support the claims she made to the national authorities that an arrest warrant had been issued against her by Ethiopian authorities and that 29 30 31 32 10 General comment No. 4, para. 38. Ibid., para. 50. X, Y and Z v. Sweden (CAT/C/20/D/61/1996), para. 11.2; G.B.M. v. Sweden (CAT/C/49/D/435/2010), para. 7.7; X. v. Denmark (CAT/C/53/D/458/2011), para. 9.5; and S.S.B. v. Denmark (CAT/C/60/D/602/2014), para. 8.7. See, for example, I.E. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/62/D/683/2015), para. 7.6; and H.R.E.S. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/64/D/783/2016), para. 8.13.