CAT/C/57/D/605/2014 information, including on the situation in the Negombo Remand Unit, without demonstrating a personal risk, while the State party asserts that the current situation in Sri Lanka does not in itself suffice to establish that a forcible removal of the complainant would entail a violation of his rights under article 3 of the Convention. 9.8 The Committee recalls paragraph 5 of its general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, according to which the burden of presenting an arguable case lies with the author of a complaint, and considers that the complainant has not discharged this burden of proof.27 9.9 In regard to the complainant’s claim that the migration authorities have not properly investigated his allegations of a risk of torture upon return, the Committee notes that the complainant disagrees with the factual conclusions of the State party’s authorities. Nonetheless, his claims do not establish that the evaluation of his asylum application by the Australian authorities was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. In this regard, the Committee notes that the State party’s migration authorities have conducted a comprehensive and thorough examination of the evidence in the case, and considers that the complainant has not sufficiently substantiated his claims that the State party’s authorities have failed to duly assess the risk he would allegedly face in case of his return to Sri Lanka. 10. Consequently, the Committee considers that, in the particular circumstances of the present case, the evidence and circumstances invoked by the complainant have not adduced sufficient grounds for believing that he would face a real, foreseeable, personal and present risk of being subjected to torture in case of his removal to Sri Lanka. The Committee thus considers that the material on the file does not enable it to conclude that the return of the author would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 11. 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. 27 14 See communications No. 429/2010, M.S. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 11 November 2013, paras. 10.5 and 10.6; and No. 455/2011, X.Q.L. v. Australia, decision adopted on 2 May 2014, para. 9.4. GE.16-09596