CAT/C/58/D/595/2014 9.5 The Committee notes the complainant’s claims that he would be at a real and personal risk of torture if returned to Sri Lanka (a) because he had been detained and subjected to ill-treatment in 2011 and 2012 by the Sri Lanka Army and by an unidentified paramilitary group; (b) because he bore scarring on his leg which he alleged would lead the Sri Lankan authorities to believe that he had been involved in the past with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam; and (c) because of his illegal departure from Sri Lanka. The Committee notes, however, that the relevant organs of the State party thoroughly evaluated all the evidence presented by the complainant and found it to lack credibility. In addition, the Committee notes that, according to his own statement, neither the complainant nor any member of his family were ever involved with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, and that the complainant has not presented credible evidence that his scarring alone, resulting from a shrapnel injury sustained in his childhood, would result in him being suspected of links with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. 9.6 With regard to the complainant’s allegation that he would be arrested and jailed because of his illegal departure from Sri Lanka, the Committee notes the uncontested information that under section 45 (1) (b) of the Immigrants and Emigrants Act, it is an offence to depart other than via an official port of entry or exit and the penalties include custodial sentences of up to five years and a fine of up to 200,000 rupees. The Committee recalls that the mere risk of being arrested and interrogated is not sufficient to conclude that there is also a risk of being subjected to torture. 14 The Committee also observes that even if the complainant is sentenced to a custodial sentence, having to serve such a sentence would not in itself constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1, according to which the burden of presenting an arguable case lies with the author of a communication (para. 5). In the Committee’s opinion, the complainant has not discharged that burden of proof. 10. The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the decision of the State party to return the complainant to Sri Lanka does not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 14 2009-2014”, March 2014, available from www.univie.ac.at/bimtor/dateien/violence_in_sri_lanka_2009_2014.pdf. See communications No. 57/1996, P.Q.L. v. Canada, Views adopted on 17 November 1997, para. 10.5; and No. 438/2010, M.A.H. and F.H. v. Switzerland, decision of 7 November 2013, para. 7.5. 9