CAT/C/55/D/505/2012 after the alleged events occurred, they would still currently be at risk of being subjected to torture if returned to their country of origin. The Committee has also noted the claim that the complainants would be tortured if deported to India on account of their perceived affiliation with the Sikh militants and a land dispute between the Sikh temple and a local politician. The Committee, however, notes that the complainants did not present any documentary evidence that there were any criminal proceedings pending against them or that the Indian authorities had issued an arrest warrant for them. On the contrary, they were able to freely leave the country. The Committee recalls paragraph 5 of general comment No. 1, according to which the burden of presenting an arguable case lies with the author of a communication. In the Committee’s opinion, the complainants have not discharged this burden of proof.35 Further, the complainants have not demonstrated that the authorities of the State party, which considered the case, have failed to conduct a proper investigation. 8.7 The Committee therefore concludes that the complainants have not adduced sufficient grounds for believing that they would run a real, foreseeable, personal and present risk of being subjected to torture upon return to India. 9. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the complainants removal to India by the State party would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. However, the removal of the complainants to India in June 2015, notwithstanding the interim measures requested by the Committee, constitutes a violation of article 22 of the Convention. 35 18 See communication No. 429/2010, Sivagnanaratnam v. Denmark, decision of 11 November 2013, paras. 10.5 and 10.6.