CAT/C/68/D/860/2018 finds that the apparent absence of subsequent efforts by the Russian authorities to have the complainant appear as a suspect in a criminal case since 6 October 2016 and the absence of links between the complainant and X, other than their conviction, does not support his contention that he runs a foreseeable, present, personal and real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 1 upon return to the Russian Federation on account of his association with X. 12.12 In the light of the above, including the absence of any problems on the part of the complainant’s wife and children in the Russian Federation and with the Russian authorities and of any indications that the Russian authorities have followed up on the complainant’s non-compliance with the 2016 summons, whose probative value has been questioned by the State party, the Committee considers that it is not in a position to conclude that Ramzan Kadyrov’s alleged statement in 2015 that he had “previously killed people such as” the complainant’s father indicates such a risk either. 12.13 The Committee refers to paragraph 38 of its general comment No. 4, according to which the burden of proof is upon the complainant, who has to present an arguable case. In the Committee’s opinion, in the present case, the complainant has not discharged that burden of proof. The Committee therefore concludes that the complainant has not adduced sufficient grounds for it to believe that he would run a real, foreseeable, personal and present risk of being subjected to torture upon return to the Russian Federation. 13. The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the complainant’s removal to the Russian Federation by the State party would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 12