CAT/C/71/D/802/2017 9.5 The Committee also recalls that the burden of proof is on complainants, who must present an arguable case – that is, submit substantiated arguments showing that the danger that they will be subjected to torture is foreseeable, present, personal and real. 13 However, when complainants are unable to elaborate on their case, such as when they have demonstrated that they are unable to obtain documentation relating to their allegations of torture or have been deprived of their liberty, the burden of proof is reversed and the State party concerned must investigate the allegations and verify the information on which the complaint is based. 14 The Committee further 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. It follows that the Committee will make a free assessment of the information available to it in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, taking into account all of the circumstances relevant to each case.15 9.6 The Committee notes the complainant’s claim that she fears being tortured in China because she has been involved with Falun Gong in both China and Australia, and because her name was published online by the Federal Court of Australia in relation to her application for a protection visa. The Committee notes that it is uncontested that the complainant’s full name and allegations against the Government of China were stated in the Federal Court decision that was published online. The Committee notes the complainant’s claim that as a result of this disclosure, the Government of China is aware of her accusations against it and will punish her for them. The Committee also notes that the complainant contests the decisions of the domestic authorities on her application for a protection visa, and disputes in particular their findings concerning the complainant’s credibility. The Committee further takes note of the article cited by the complainant concerning the alleged abduction of several Falun Gong practitioners by police officials in China in October 2016. 9.7 The Committee also notes the State party’s position that the complainant would not face a risk of torture upon return to China because she is not a genuine Falun Gong practitioner, as her testimony concerning her persecution was not credible and was deemed to have been fabricated. The Committee notes that according to the State party, the complainant would not be likely to practise Falun Gong if she returned to China. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the complainant’s four-year delay in leaving China after her release from detention in 2008 is inconsistent with her claim that she feared being harmed by the authorities in China. The Committee further notes the State party’s assertion that the publication of the complainant’s name in the decision of the Federal Court was inadvertent and temporary, as the unredacted decision was taken down within two weeks, immediately after the discovery of the error by the State party’s authorities. 9.8 The Committee recalls that it must ascertain whether the complainant would currently face a risk of being subjected to torture in China. 16 The Committee observes that the complainant’s account contains gaps relating to central aspects of her claims. The Committee notes that the complainant has not described her initial practice of Falun Gong and has not provided elements that could explain why she might have drawn the scrutiny of the three public security officers who allegedly came to search her house in 2008. The Committee observes that the complainant provided few details concerning her allegations that she was beaten while in detention, and did not indicate whether she sustained injuries as a result of that ill-treatment. The Committee observes that the complainant did not describe the questions asked by the police officers who interrogated her, and considers that the reasons for which she was allegedly detained for one week and beaten are therefore unclear. The Committee notes the complainant’s statement that after her release from detention, she resumed practising Falun Gong and distributed related leaflets without incident until her departure from China in 2012. The Committee notes that the complainant did not claim to fear being detained again and tortured by the authorities as a result of that activity. The Committee observes that the complainant was able to obtain a valid passport in 2011 and leave China lawfully and safely. The Committee notes the finding of the domestic authorities that the undated, unsigned document that the complainant provided to attest to her detention 13 14 15 16 10 See, for example, E.T. v. the Netherlands (CAT/C/65/D/801/2017), para. 7.5. Committee against Torture, general comment No. 4 (2017), para. 38. Ibid., para. 50. See, for example, X v. Switzerland (CAT/C/67/DR/775/2016), para. 8.8. GE.21-11876