CAT/C/59/D/652/2015 and working as a taxi driver, and his wife has continued living in Sri Lanka up to the present. He has not argued that his relatives have been subjected to persecution before or after his departure, or that they received threats addressed to him. Against this background, the Committee considers that the complainant has failed to explain why the decision of the State party’s authorities to deny him a protection visa was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. The Committee recalls in this respect its general comment No. 1, according to which the burden of presenting an arguable case lies with the complainant of a communication (para. 5). In the Committee’s opinion, in the present case, the complainant has not discharged this burden of proof.15 10. Consequently, the Committee considers that the evidence and circumstances invoked by the complainant do not show sufficient grounds for believing that he would run 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 before it does not enable it to conclude that the return of the complainant would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 11. In the light of the foregoing, 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. 15 10 See communication No. 429/2010, Sivagnanaratnam v. Denmark, decision adopted on 11 November 2013, paras. 10.5 and 10.6.