CAT/C/67/D/828/2017 on returns in which it assists, or confirmation from IOM of information provided by the complainant. The Committee notes, furthermore, that the complainant has not specified whether he tried to challenge the conditions of his alleged detention before the competent authorities or to inform himself of remedies available in that regard. The Committee refers to its general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, paragraph 38 of which states that it is the complainant who has to present an arguable case,10 that is, submit substantiated arguments showing that the danger of being subjected to torture is foreseeable, present, personal and real. In the Committee’s opinion, the complainant has not discharged that burden of proof. 6.7 The Committee therefore concludes that the complainant has not sufficiently and clearly established a foreseeable, present, personal and real risk of torture in the event of his return to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and that the complaint is inadmissible on grounds of insufficient substantiation, pursuant to article 22 (4) of the Convention and rule 113 (b) of its rules of procedure. 6.8 The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the complaint is inadmissible under article 22 of the Convention; (b) That the present decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the complainant. 10 8 Sivagnanaratnam v. Denmark (CAT/C/51/D/429/2010), paras. 10.5 and 10.6; A.R. v. Netherlands (CAT/C/31/D/203/2002), para. 7.3; Kalonzo v. Canada (CAT/C/48/D/343/2008), para. 9.3; X. v. Denmark (CAT/C/53/D/458/2011), para. 9.3; W.G.D. v. Canada (CAT/C/53/D/520/2012), para. 8.4; and T.Z. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/62/D/688/2015), para. 8.4. GE.19-14950