CAT/C/65/D/691/2015 Migration Agency, the complainant confirmed that there was nothing hindering her from returning to the Islamic Republic of Iran and that before leaving the country she had not had any problems with the Iranian authorities. The Committee further notes that, according to the authorities in the State party, the complainant’s arguments that her ex-husband would interfere with her and spread false accusations in various ways are speculative and not supported by any evidence or factual events. For example, the complainant submits photographs of her family members and herself in the company of various members of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan as proof of her ties to the Party, but she does not state whether her husband knew about those photographs or how the Iranian authorities might have obtained them. 10. The Committee refers to paragraph 38 of its general comment No. 4, according to which the burden of proof is upon the author of the communication who has to present an arguable case. In the Committee’s opinion, the complainant has not discharged that burden of proof. Furthermore, the complainant has not demonstrated that the authorities of the State party failed to conduct a proper investigation into her allegations. 11. The Committee therefore concludes that the complainant has not adduced sufficient grounds for it to believe that she would run a real, foreseeable, personal and present risk of being subjected to torture upon return to the Islamic Republic of Iran. 12. The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the complainant’s removal to the Islamic Republic of Iran by the State party would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 12