CAT/C/60/D/699/2015 persecution thereafter, and that he has not provided any evidence that he had been personally targeted. 7.6 As to the alleged involvement of the complainant’s brother with LTTE, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the complainant raised this issue for the first time in his pre-removal risk assessment application in November 2014, and did not provide any reasonable explanation for not having disclosed this information before. The Committee also notes that both the pre-removal risk assessment officer and the Federal Court examined these allegations but considered that his brother’s alleged death happened 20 years ago and would therefore not justify a present risk for the complainant, and that the complainant’s family continues to live in Sri Lanka without any apparent major difficulties related to the alleged links with LTTE. 7.7 Regarding the complainant’s arrival aboard the MV Ocean Lady and his failed asylum application, the Committee notes that the author’s allegations lack precision and are not supported by credible evidence. The Refugee Protection Division and the Federal Court noted in this respect the lack of evidence to suggest that having merely travelled on that ship or having failed to obtain asylum in Canada would indicate that the complainant would be perceived as an LTTE supporter and therefore be at a real and personal risk of an article 3 violation. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the complainant travelled legally with his own passport and that there is no indication that he would be suspected of having any significant ties with LTTE or any political involvement through activities either in Sri Lanka or in Canada. 7.8 Finally, the Committee observes that the complainant has failed to provide any detailed information regarding his allegation that he witnessed human rights violations committed by Sri Lankan authorities in the north during the civil war. The Committee recalls paragraph 5 of its general comment No. 1, according to which the burden of presenting an arguable case is on the author of a communication, and considers that the complainant has not fulfilled this burden of proof. 8. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee considers that the complainant has not provided sufficient evidence to enable it to conclude that his forcible removal to Sri Lanka would expose him to a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention. 9. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, therefore concludes that the complainant’s removal to Sri Lanka would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 8