CAT/C/66/D/776/2016 tortured in the State of destination. The Committee recalls that “substantial grounds” exist whenever the risk of torture is “foreseeable, personal, present and real” (para. 11). Indications of personal risk may include, but are not limited to: (a) the complainant’s ethnic background and religious affiliation; (b) the political affiliation or political activities of the complainant; (c) arrest or detention without guarantee of a fair trial and treatment; (d) sentence in absentia; and (e) previous torture (para. 45). 7.5 With respect to the merits of a communication submitted under article 22 of the Convention, the burden of proof is upon the author of the communication, who must present an arguable case, that is, submit substantiated arguments showing that the danger of being subjected to torture is foreseeable, present, personal and real (para. 38). However, when the complainant is in a situation where he or she cannot elaborate on his or her case, for instance when the complainant has demonstrated that he or she has no possibility of obtaining documentation relating to his or her allegation of torture, or is deprived of his or her liberty, the burden of proof is reversed and it is up to the State party concerned to investigate the allegations and verify the information on which the complaint is based (para. 38). The Committee also recalls that it gives considerable weight to findings of fact made by organs of the State party concerned, however it is not bound by such findings and it can make a free assessment of the information available to it in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, taking into account all the circumstances relevant to each case (para. 50).13 7.6 The Committee notes the complainants’ claim that they fear for their lives and bodily integrity in Pakistan because they are Christian and are subject to an arrest warrant. The Committee notes the male complainant’s allegations that, while working at the Swiss Embassy in Islamabad, he received frequent telephone calls in 2010 and 2011 from individuals offering him bribes in exchange for visas. The male complainant alleges to have been attacked by the callers in Lahore, to have received an anonymous threatening letter, and to have discovered that a criminal complaint had been filed against him for blasphemy. The Committee notes the complainants’ claims that they left Pakistan as a result of these incidents; that the police subsequently visited the male complainant’s brother twice in search of the male complainant; that they returned to Pakistan because they had hoped the situation there had improved; and that they again left Pakistan after learning that a First Information Report had been registered against the male complainant. The Committee notes the complainants’ allegation that on the basis of the Report, which states that a criminal complaint had been filed against the male complainant for blasphemy under sections 295-A and 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code, the State party should refrain from removing them to Pakistan. The Committee notes their claims that the credibility determination of the Swiss asylum authorities was erroneous and arbitrary, and that in Pakistan, Christians are subject to widespread persecution, and do not benefit from State protection. 7.7 The Committee also notes the State party’s position that the complainants’ claims lack credibility and are materially inconsistent on significant points. In this regard, the Committee notes in particular the State party’s argument that the complainants’ voluntary return to Pakistan indicates they did not fear being harmed there. The Committee also notes the State party’s position that it is implausible that the male complainant did not inform his superiors at the Swiss Embassy in Islamabad that he was receiving threatening telephone calls at work on an almost daily basis. The Committee notes the State party’s observation that the complainants, when returning to Pakistan, booked a return journey to Switzerland. It also notes the State party’s findings that the First Information Report and anonymous threatening letter provided by the complainants were inauthentic, in part because they contained English-language wording. The Committee further notes that according to the State party, the general situation in Pakistan does not in and of itself suffice to establish that the complainants would face a risk of torture upon return, and that conditions for Christians have improved there. 7.8 The Committee recalls that it must ascertain whether the complainants would currently face a risk of being subjected to torture in Pakistan. 14 The Committee notes that, 13 14 GE.19-13276 Ibid., para. 7.5. E.g., G.B.M. v. Sweden (CAT/C/49/D/435/2010), para. 7.7. 9