CAT/C/60/D/623/2014 10.8 Regarding the death of the complainant’s cousin, the Committee notes that the complainant has provided no information as to the specific role of his cousin within LTTE and no details of how he was killed, and, most importantly, whether any member of the cousin’s family, or the complainant himself before leaving the country, had any problems because of his cousin’s LTTE activities. As for his participation in the LTTE-organized sports activities in the Netherlands, the Committee notes that even if the Sri Lankan authorities will be able to identify him from untagged Facebook pictures, those events were of a non-political nature and do not of themselves make of the complainant a significant LTTE supporter. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee concludes that even if the complainant is checked at the airport on account of the emergency passport or his scars, there is no evidence that he has the profile of an LTTE supporter which would put him in personal risk of torture by the authorities. 10.9 The Committee recalls that according to its general comment No. 1, the burden of presenting an arguable case lies with the complainant. In the Committee’s opinion, in the present case, the complainant has not discharged this burden of proof.14 11. On the basis of the above, and in the light of the material before it, the Committee considers that the complainant has not provided sufficient evidence to enable it to conclude that his forcible removal to his country of origin would expose him to a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention. 12. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, decides that the complainant’s removal to Sri Lanka by the State party would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 14 8 See communication No. 429/2010, Sivagnanaratnam v. Denmark, decision adopted on 11 November 2013, paras. 10.5 and 10.6.