CAT/C/49/D/417/2010 party in this respect, the Committee finds that the complainant has complied with article 22, paragraph 5 (b) of the Convention. 6.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the complaint should be declared inadmissible for lack of substantiation. The Committee however considers that the arguments before it raise substantive issues under article 3 of the Convention which should be dealt with on the merits and not on admissibility considerations alone. As the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the present complaint admissible. Consideration of the merits 7.1 In accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, the Committee has considered the present complaint in the light of all information made available to it by the parties concerned. 7.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the removal of the complainant to China violated the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return (refouler) a person to another State where there were substantial grounds for believing that he or she would have been in danger of being subjected to torture. The Committee must evaluate whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would have been personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to China. In assessing this risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the Committee recalls that the 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. 7.3 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1, 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” (para. 6), 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.18 The Committee further recalls its general comment No. 1, paragraph 5, according to which the burden to present an arguable case is on the complainant. The Committee notes the complainant’s claims under article 3 and his argument that he produced sufficient evidence corroborating his allegations of past torture suffered as a result of his Falun Gong activities in China, and that any inconsistencies in the account of facts is due to fabrication of some of the facts by his migration agent at the time of submission of his Protection Visa application. 7.4 The Committee also takes note of the State party’s arguments that the complainant failed to provide any details about the nature of his activities as a Falun Gong practitioner in China and regarding the violence allegedly committed by police against him in his Protection Visa application, that the version of facts regarding his detention in China advanced in his ministerial intervention requests is in contradiction with his original claim made in the initial application, and that he had the opportunity to clarify such inconsistencies and provide further details and evidence about his claims by attending the hearing of the Refugee Review Tribunal, but declined the invitation and requested the Tribunal to take a decision in his absence. The State party also argues that the information and evidence provided by the complainant in support of his allegations, including as part of 18 10 See, inter alia, communications No. 203/2002, A.R. v. Netherlands, Views adopted on 14 November 2003, paragraph 7.3; No. 285/2006, A.A. et al. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 10 November 2008, para. 7.6; No. 322/2007, Njamba and Balikosa v. Sweden, decision adopted on 14 May 2010, para. 9.4.