Advance unedited version B. Interim measures of protection 36. When the Committee, or members designated by it, request the State party concerned, for its urgent consideration, to take such interim measures, once the decision on deportation by the domestic authorities has become enforceable according to the information available, that the Committee considers necessary to avoid irreparable damage to the victim or victims of alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention, in accordance with Rule 114 of the Committee’s rules of procedure, the State party should comply with the Committee’s request in good faith. 37. Non-compliance by the State party with the Committee’s request would constitute a serious damage and obstacle to the effectiveness of the Committee’s deliberations and would cast a serious doubt on the willingness of the State party to implement Article 22 of the Convention in good faith.65 This has resulted in the Committee’s determination that the noncompliance with its request for interim measures constitutes a breach of Article 22 of the Convention.66 C. Merits 38. With respect to the application of Article 3 of the Convention to the merits of a communication submitted under Article 22 of the Convention, the burden of proof is upon the author of the communication who has to present an arguable case 67 – i.e. to submit circumstantiated arguments showing that the danger of being subjected to torture is foreseeable, present, personal and real. However, when the complainant is in a situation where he/she cannot elaborate on his/her case, for instance, when the complainant has demonstrated that he/she has no possibility of obtaining documentation relating to his/her allegation of torture or is deprived of his/her liberty, the burden of proof is reversed 68 and it is up to the State party concerned to investigate the allegations and verify the information on which the communication is based. 39. It is the responsibility of the State party, at the national level, to assess, through administrative and/or judicial procedures, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant faces a foreseeable, present, personal and real risk of being subjected to torture in the State where he/she would be deported. 40. In its procedure of assessment, the State party should provide the person concerned with fundamental guarantees and safeguards, especially if the person is deprived of his/her liberty or the person is in a particularly vulnerable situation such as the situation of an asylum 65 66 67 68 See communications No. 428/2010, Kalinichenko v. Morocco, decision adopted on 25 November 2011, paras. 13.1, 13.2 and 16; Tursunov v. Kazakhstan, para. 10, supra fn. 40; No. 542/2013, X v. the Russian Federation, decision adopted on 8 May 2015, paras. 9.2 and 12; and No. 671/2015, D.I.S. v. Hungary, decision adopted on 8 December 2015, paras. 9.1 - 9.3. See e.g. communications No. 614/2014, S.T. v. Australia, decision adopted on 9 August 2017, paras. 9 and 10; and X v. the Russian Federation, supra fn. 65, para. 12. See communications No. 429/2010, Sivagnanaratnam v. Denmark, decision adopted on 11 November 2013, paras. 10.5 - 10.6; No. 203/2002, A. R. v. Netherlands, decision adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 7.3; No. 343/2008, Arthur Kasombola Kalonzo v. Canada, decision adopted on 18 May 2012, para. 9.3; No. 458/2011, X v. Denmark, decision adopted on 28 November 2014, para. 9.3.; and W.G.D. v. Canada, para. 8.4., supra fn. 62; and No. 688/2015, T.Z. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 22 November 2017, para. 8.4. For comparison, see communications No. 282/2005, S.P.A. v. Canada, decision of 7 November 2006, para. 7.5; and No. 562/2013, J.K. v. Canada, decision adopted on 23 November 2015, para. 10.4. 13