CAT/C/58/D/609/2014 not adduced reasons as to why the authorities would start being interested in him 15 years after the death of his brother. The Committee therefore concludes that the complainant has not provided evidence of any connection with LTTE that would put him at personal risk of torture in Sri Lanka. 8.8 The Committee recalls that, according to its general comment No. 1, the burden of presenting an arguable case lies with the complainant (para. 5). In the Committee’s opinion, in the present case, the complainant has not discharged this burden of proof.14 9. In the light of the above, the Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the complainant’s removal to Sri Lanka by the State party would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 14 See communication No. 429/2010, Sivagnanaratnam v. Denmark, decision adopted on 11 November 2013, paras. 10.5-10.6. 9