CAT/C/52/D/466/2011 8.5 The Committee further notes that, even if it were to accept the claim that the complainant was subjected to torture in the past, especially in the light of the refugee status granted to him by the Romanian authorities, the question is whether he remains, at present, at risk of torture in Turkey. The Committee notes at the outset the uncontested information on file that the complainant’s refugee status ended after his voluntary departure from Romania and that he is not recognized as a refugee in any other country. It further takes note of the complainant’s claim that he would be imprisoned, if returned to Turkey, either to serve the remainder of his 1988 sentence or if charged with having led the PRK political party in Turkey before his departure from that country in the 1990s. In that connection, it notes the complainant’s statement that he stopped his activities for the PRK in 2000 at the latest. It also notes the counsel’s information to the effect that the complainant was detained in Turkey after his removal from Denmark on 28 June 2011. 8.6 The Committee has noted the claim that the complainant runs the risk of being subjected to torture upon return to Turkey, in particular on account of his affiliation with the PRK and his failure to complete military service. It has also noted the complainant’s reference to the general human rights situation in Turkey and the Committee’s concluding observations underlining the use of torture in Turkish prisons. However, the Committee recalls that the occurrence of human rights violations in his or her country of origin is not sufficient, in itself, to lead it to conclude that a complainant, personally, runs a risk of torture. It also notes that the complainant has submitted no other evidence suggesting that, after his return to Turkey, he would have been imprisoned for his past political activities or his failure to do military service, would have had a disproportionate sentence imposed on him in that connection, or would have faced treatment in contravention of the provisions of the Convention. In the circumstances, the Committee considers that the material on file does not permit it to consider that the Danish authorities, which examined the case, failed to conduct a proper investigation. In addition, the Committee notes that no other material on file permits it to establish that, over 20 years after the alleged torture occurred, the complainant would still face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being tortured or subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment in his country of origin. 8.7 The Committee recalls paragraph 5 of general comment No. 1, according to which the burden of presenting an arguable case lies with the author of a communication. In the circumstances of this case, in the Committee’s opinion, the complainant has not discharged that burden of proof. 9. In the light of the above considerations and in the absence of further pertinent information on file, the Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, concludes that the deportation of the complainant to Turkey by the State party did not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. [Adopted in English, French and Spanish, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic, Chinese and Russian as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.] 14