CAT/C/59/D/633/2014 7.9 In the light of the above, the Committee recalls its general comment No. 1, according to which the burden of presenting an arguable case lies with the complainant. 15 In the Committee’s opinion, in the present case, the complainant has not discharged this burden of proof.16 8. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the decision of the State party to return the complainant to Sri Lanka does not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 15 16 See general comment No. 1, para. 5. See communication No. 429/2010, Sivagnanaratnam v. Denmark, decision adopted on 11 November 2013, paras. 10.5 and 10.6. 13