CAT/C/48/D/370/2009 recalls that it is generally incumbent upon the complainant to present an arguable case and that the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. 8.6 The Committee notes that the complainant has not adduced evidence of a real, personal and foreseeable risk of torture after his removal to Haiti. Indeed, the complainant made a series of allegations that he was at risk of being tortured, but provided no persuasive evidence to corroborate the allegations, be they of kidnapping, the risk of torture or the risk of violation of the right to life while in detention. Furthermore, all the allegations submitted by the complainant were examined by the State party’s authorities during the asylum procedure and in the proceedings before the Committee. With regard to the complainant’s health, the State party has looked into the availability in Haiti of treatment appropriate for the applicant. The situation does not fall within the scope of article 1, and in respect of the risk to his health, cannot on its own fall under the scope of article 16 of the Convention.19 The Committee also notes that the State party took this allegation seriously and carried out the necessary checks before proceeding with the complainant’s removal. The Committee further notes that following his return to Haiti on 22 August 2011 the complainant was briefly detained, and did not submit any allegations of torture or ill-treatment to the Committee. 8.7 The Committee recalls that in accordance with its general comment on implementation of article 3 of the Convention, and with its jurisprudence, the State party does not have to show, when assessing the risk of torture in the case of a person being removed to a third country, that the risk is “highly probable”, but it must be personal and present. In this regard, in previous decisions the Committee has determined that the risk of torture must be foreseeable, real and personal. Further, the Committee observes that considerable weight will be given, in exercising the Committee’s jurisdiction pursuant to article 3 of the Convention, to findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned. It must therefore be determined whether, at the time of assessing the risk run by the complainant, the State party carried out a thorough assessment of the complainant’s allegations and took into account all the elements enabling it to assess the risk that was run. The Committee considers that in the present case the State party carried out the assessment in accordance with these principles.20 8.8 The Committee considers that the information submitted to the Committee does not show that the complainant ran a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture following his return to his country of origin. 9. The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, therefore concludes that the deportation of the complainant to Haiti does not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. [Adopted in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the French text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic and Chinese as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.] 19 20 12 Communication No. 245/2004, S.S.S. v. Canada, para. 7.3. See general comment No. 1 on implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22 (refoulement and communications) (1996), paras. 6, 7 and 9 (a) and, inter alia, communication No. 356/2008, N.S. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 6 May 2010, para. 7.3. GE.12-43638