CAT/C/43/D/331/2007 concerned would be personally at risk. Similarly, the absence of a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights does not mean that a person cannot be considered to be in danger of being subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances. 7.3 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1 on implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22, which states that the Committee is to assess whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture if deported to the country concerned. The risk need not be highly probable, but it must be personal and present. In this regard, in previous decisions, the Committee has determined that the risk of torture must be “foreseeable, real and personal”.12 7.4 With regard to the burden of proof, the Committee also recalls its general comment and its previous decisions, according to which the burden is generally on the complainant to present an arguable case and the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. 7.5 In assessing the risk of torture in the present case, the Committee has noted that the complainant states that he is a member of the Burundian organization PA-Amasekanya, which has since 1994 denounced the impunity enjoyed by those responsible for the Tutsi genocide. It has also noted the allegation that, as a member of this organization, the complainant runs the risk of being arrested and then tortured during detention, an allegation largely based on a letter dated 10 January 2007 written by the President of the Ligue burundaise des droits de l’homme, which mentions the complainant as running a substantial risk of imprisonment. The Committee has noted the allegation that the complainant made a radio broadcast in 2004 which, in his view, resulted in a wanted notice being issued for him. The Committee has noted the complainant’s argument that PA-Amasekanya members are tortured during detention. It notes that the complainant has provided a letter written by the PA-Amasekanya President which testifies that torture was practised on members of the organization, who have since been released. Lastly, the Committee notes that the complainant’s brother is reported to have been arrested in 2004 and to have subsequently disappeared. 7.6 The State party contests the merits of the complainant’s allegations given the lack of evidence of a personal risk of torture, whether as an individual or as a member of PA-Amasekanya. It points to the lack of evidence proving that the complainant risks imprisonment and exposure to ill-treatment on his return to Burundi. The State party has also highlighted the significant political changes in Burundi since the complainant left. 7.7 The Committee notes that the complainant has not provided evidence that he was wanted by the Burundian authorities.13 The complainant has based his allegation that he risks torture if deported to Burundi purely on his affiliation to PA-Amasekanya. Having previously argued before the Canadian authorities that he was an active and committed member of the organization, he changed his approach, admitting that he was a “mere member” when the Canadian authorities made it clear that involvement with the organization would constitute grounds for denying him the protection of refugee status. The complainant submits that, since PA-Amasekanya members are particularly at risk of arrest and torture, he would be exposed to the same risk if deported to Burundi. Only a letter signed by the PA-Amasekanya President testifies that the organization’s members have been tortured, and the letter is not supported by the testimony of a victim or other relevant documents that would lead the Committee to conclude that the complainant was at real risk 12 13 GE.09-46723 Communication No. 203/2002, A.R. v. The Netherlands, Views adopted on 21 November 2003, para. 7.3. No evidence of a warrant for the complainant’s arrest. 9