CAT/C/48/D/396/2009 subjected to torture if expelled to that country; additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk.7 7.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1, which states that the risk of torture need not be highly probable, but it must be personal and present. In this regard, the Committee has established in previous decisions that the risk of torture must be “foreseeable, real and personal”.8 As to the burden of proof, the Committee also recalls that it is normally for the complainant to present an arguable case, and the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. 7.5 In assessing the risk of torture in the present case, the Committee notes the complainant’s claims that he is an active member of UFC; that his role was to protect party members, distribute leaflets and make statements; that he was first arrested in 1999 for sending information on the political situation in Togo to friends in Germany; that he was tortured and held in inhuman conditions for two months and then released; that following clashes on 18 July 1999 he fled to Ghana to escape arrest; and that he returned to Togo in 2002 after being introduced to Mr. H.O. Olympio, who gave him a permit and his business card. The Committee notes the complainant’s claim that during the 2003 presidential elections he reported fraudulent voting practices; that, following death threats, he fled to Benin; that he returned to Togo in January 2004; that he was arrested by gendarmes on 28 March 2006 and transferred to the Zébé camp, where he was beaten, threatened with death and accused of taking part in the attack on the Lomé gendarmerie on 26 February 2006; that on 19 April 2006, he managed to escape thanks to bribes paid to a guard by his brother-inlaw; and that he subsequently fled to Ghana, from where he departed for Switzerland via Italy. The Committee notes the complainant’s argument that the situation in Togo has not improved for ordinary UFC members, who are at risk of being imprisoned and tortured, as confirmed by the Swiss Refugee Council report of 18 May 2009; and that this report also establishes that those who fled Togo for Benin and Ghana are viewed with greater suspicion. Lastly, it notes his claim that the Swiss authorities have failed to fulfil their obligation to conduct an effective and thorough official investigation into credible allegations of treatment that violates article 1 of the Convention, such as that evidenced by the medical reports submitted by the complainant, including the report of the psychiatric services of Solothurn dated 29 May 2009. 7.6 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the complainant has not provided the Committee with new information and that he has merely contested the domestic authorities’ assessment of the facts. The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the situation in Togo has improved considerably since the complainant left the country; that, although it is in opposition, UFC is represented in parliament; and that some of those who had fled Togo have returned to their country, with no persecution being reported. The Committee notes the State party’s argument that, even assuming that his testimony is credible, this alone does not constitute substantial grounds for believing that he would face torture if he returned to Togo; that there is no causal link between the complainant’s arrest in 1999 and his departure from Togo for Switzerland; that the medical reports written eight years after the alleged facts make no mention of acts of torture and that they are based explicitly on the complainant’s account; that the Swiss Refugee Council 7 8 GE.12-43942 See communication No. 282/2005, S.P.A. v. Canada, decision adopted on 7 November 2006; T.I. v. Canada, communication No. 333/2007, decision adopted on 15 November 2010; and A.M.A. v. Switzerland, communication No. 344/2008, decision adopted on 12 November 2010. See A.R. v. Netherlands, communication No. 203/2002, decision adopted on 21 November 2003, para. 7.3; A.A. et. al v. Switzerland, communication No. 285/2006, decision adopted on 10 November 2008, para. 7.6; and R.T.-N. v. Switzerland, communication No. 350/2008, decision adopted on 3 June 2011, para. 8.4. 9