CAT/C/57/D/583/2014 management and health-care technology programme; he never alleged that he had been affiliated with any political or militant activities; and he had no difficulty leaving India on a valid passport and with a Canadian student visa, despite allegedly being suspected by police of conspiring to assassinate a leader. 7.5 The Committee takes note of the documentation provided by the complainant to substantiate that he was subjected to torture. However, the Committee notes that the State party’s competent authorities thoroughly evaluated the evidence presented by the complainant and found it to be of limited probative value due to its content and timing. 14 In addition, the Committee observes that the complainant did not present any documentary evidence that there are any criminal proceedings pending against him or that the Indian authorities have issued a warrant for his arrest. 15 The Committee considers that the State party’s authorities adequately explored the fundamental aspects of the complainant’s claims before drawing an adverse conclusion as to his credibility. The Committee therefore does not attribute material weight to the complainant’s assertion that, although he left India in January 2010, the authorities in Punjab continue to harass and interrogate his family members in order to ascertain his whereabouts. The Committee recalls paragraph 5 of its general comment No. 1, according to which the burden of presenting an arguable case is on the author of a communication; it considers that the complainant has not fulfilled this burden of proof. 8. In the light of the considerations above, and on the basis of all the information submitted by the parties, the Committee considers that the complainant has not provided sufficient evidence to enable it to conclude that his forcible removal to India would expose him to a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention. 9. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, therefore concludes that the complainant’s removal to India would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 14 15 8 See para. 4.5 above. See communication No. 555/2013, Z. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 10 August 2015, para. 7.7. GE.16-09779