CAT/C/68/D/863/2018 deportation, either as an individual or a member of a group which may be at risk of being tortured in the State of destination. The Committee recalls that “substantial grounds” exist whenever the risk of torture is “foreseeable, personal, present and real”. 7 Indications of personal risk may include, but are not limited to: (a) the complainant’s ethnic background and religious affiliation; (b) previous torture; (c) incommunicado detention or other form of arbitrary and illegal detention in the country of origin; (d) political affiliation or political activities of the complainant; (e) arrest and/or detention without guarantee of a fair trial and treatment; (f) violations of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; and (g) clandestine escape from the country of origin for threats of torture (para. 45).8 8.5 The Committee also recalls that the burden of proof is on the complainant, who must present an arguable case, that is, must submit substantiated arguments showing that the danger of being subjected to torture is foreseeable, present, personal and real (para. 38).9 However, when the complainant cannot elaborate on his or her case, for instance when the complainant has demonstrated an inability to obtain documentation substantiating allegations of torture or is deprived of his or her liberty, the burden of proof is reversed and it is up to the State party concerned to investigate the allegations and verify the information on which the complaint is based.10 The Committee further recalls that it gives considerable weight to findings of fact made by organs of the State party concerned, however it is not bound by such findings and will freely assess the information available to it in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, taking into account all the circumstances relevant to each case (para. 50).11 8.6 In assessing the risk of torture as relates to the present communication, the Committee notes the complainant’s claims that she was arrested in 2005, and that prison guards raped her several times a month during her imprisonment from 2005 to 2009 in Côte d’Ivoire. The Committee notes the complainant’s assertion that she fears being subjected to rape again if she is returned to Côte d’Ivoire, and is traumatized by the mere idea of returning. The Committee also notes her assertions that she could be retraumatized if she encountered the individuals who raped her, or specific places, situations and smells. The Committee also notes the complainant’s claim that perpetrators of sexual violence in the country are rarely punished. 8.7 The Committee observes that the State party’s authorities considered that the complainant was not credible because she provided inconsistent and vague statements concerning essential elements of her account. The Committee notes the State party’s observation that during asylum proceedings, the complainant, who was represented by legal counsel, did not ask the Immigration and Naturalization Service to order a medical examination. It also notes the State party’s position that the report issued by the Institute for Human Rights and Medical Assessment does not prove that the complainant was subjected to torture, because the scars it describes could have had other causes. 8.8 The Committee recalls that it must ascertain whether the complainant would currently face a risk of being subjected to torture in Côte d’Ivoire.12 The Committee notes that the complainant had the opportunity to provide additional details and supporting evidence of her claims to the domestic authorities, and that the authorities considered the complainant’s oral statements in the absence of documentation establishing her nationality, identity or travel route. The Committee also notes that the inconsistencies and gaps in the complainant’s oral statements led the domestic authorities to conclude that she had not demonstrated that she would face a foreseeable, present, personal and real risk of torture if returned to Côte d’Ivoire. The Committee notes, in particular, that the complainant initially informed the State party’s immigration authorities that when her husband was arrested, the complainant fled the family home with her children and stayed with neighbours for two 7 8 9 10 11 12 10 See the Committee’s general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22, para. 11. Ibid., para. 45. See, inter alia, E.T. v. Netherlands, para. 7.5. See the Committee’s general comment No. 4, para. 38. Ibid., para. 50. See, inter alia, G.B.M. v. Sweden (CAT/C/49/D/435/2010), para. 7.7.