CAT/C/51/D/429/2010 aim of such determination is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would return; additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk.14 10.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention, that “the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. However, the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable”, but it must be personal and present. In this regard, in previous decisions, the Committee has determined that the risk of torture must be foreseeable, real and personal. The Committee recalls that under the terms of general comment No. 1, it gives considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned, while at the same time it is not bound by such findings and instead has the power, provided by article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, of free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case. 10.5 The Committee notes that the complainant claims to have been tortured in the past and that the State party should have ordered a medical examination to prove or disprove her claims. The Committee, however, notes that the responsible organs of the State party had thoroughly evaluated all the evidence presented by the complainant, found it to lack credibility and did not consider it necessary to order a medical examination. The Committee further notes that, even if it were to accept the claim that the complainant was subjected to torture in the past, the question is whether she currently runs a risk of torture if returned to Sri Lanka. It does not necessarily follow that, several years after the alleged events occurred, she would still currently be at risk of being subjected to torture if returned to her country of origin. The Committee has also noted the claim that the complainant would be tortured if deported to Sri Lanka on account of her perceived affiliation with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. However, the complainant has not convinced the Committee that the authorities of the State party, which considered the case, did not conduct a proper investigation. In addition, the complainant did not present any evidence that the Sri Lanka authorities had been looking for her or have had any interest in her whereabouts in the recent past. 10.6 As regards the complainant’s past activities, which date back predominantly to 1999, it is not clear that these activities were of such significance as to attract the interest of the authorities if the complainant were to be returned to Sri Lanka in 2010. The Committee recalls paragraph 5 of general comment No. 1, according to which the burden of presenting an arguable case lies with the author of a communication. In the Committee’s opinion, the complainant has not discharged this burden of proof. 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 decision of the State party to return the complainant to Sri Lanka does not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. [Adopted in English, French and Spanish, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic, Chinese and Russian as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.] 14 10 See communications No. 282/2005, S.P.A. v. Canada, decision adopted on 7 November 2006; No. 333/2007, T.I. v. Canada, decision adopted on 15 November 2010; and No. 344/2008, A.M.A. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 12 November 2010.