CAT/C/56/D/594/2014 The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the complainant has not demonstrated that he is under a real and present threat of torture by terrorists. In that connection, it notes that the alleged threats by terrorists occurred in 2004 and 2005, that the complainant left Algeria in 2005 and that his last statement to the police was given in June 2005. It also notes that the complainant has not adduced any evidence that the Algerian authorities or the alleged terrorists have been looking for him in the recent past. 8.7 Furthermore, the Committee notes that, according to the State party, nothing would prevent the complainant from seeking protection from the Algerian authorities in regard to the alleged threats, especially given that the independent lawyer’s report did not establish that he would be suspected or sentenced for involvement with terrorists. In that connection, the Committee notes the complainant’s claims that the security situation in Algeria is poor, with widespread human rights violations, including the prevalence of torture in places of deprivation of liberty, while the State party asserts that the current situation in Algeria does not in itself suffice to establish that an expulsion of the complainant would entail a violation of his rights under article 3, and that the authorities generally do not lack the will or the ability to protect the country’s inhabitants. 8.8 The Committee recalls paragraph 5 of its general comment No. 1, according to which the burden of presenting an arguable case lies with the author of a communication, and considers that the complainant has not discharged the burden of proof.25 The Committee concludes that the material on file does not enable it to conclude that the complainant would be at risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention if he returned to Algeria. 8.9 As regards the complainant’s claim that the migration authorities have failed to conduct a proper investigation into his allegation, 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 Swedish authorities was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. In that 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 if he returned to Algeria. 9. Consequently, the Committee considers that the evidence and circumstances invoked by the complainant have not adduced sufficient grounds for believing that he would run a real, foreseeable, personal and present risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention. 10. The Committee acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the complainant’s removal to Algeria by the State party would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 25 14 See communication No. 429/2010, Mallikathevi Sivagnanaratnam. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 11 November 2013, paras. 10.5 and 10.6.