CAT/C/44/D/302/2006 risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion 2. However, the risk does not have to meet the test of being 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 3 .. 13.4 With regard to the burden of proof, the Committee also recalls its General Comment No.1 on article 3, and its jurisprudence to the effect that it is normally for the complainant to present an arguable case and that the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. 4 13.5 The Committee recalls that the State party questions the complainant’s credibility and the authenticity of the documents he has produced. It also reiterates its doctrine according to which it has the competence to fully examine the facts and evidence before it in adopting its decisions, even if, by making so, a considerable weight has to be attributed to the consideration made on them by the State party’s authorities. While the complainant has provided the State party and the Committee with copies of various documents as evidence, the Committee considers that the complainant has failed to rebut, with convincing arguments, the State party’s conclusions on his credibility and has not been able to validate the authenticity of the documents in question. Nor has the complainant explained how he came to have various internal administrative documents in his possession. The Committee notes that the two medical certificates produced by the complainant refer to a number of scars on various parts of the body and fractures to the tibia and fibula, but do not contain any evidence confirming or refuting that they are the result of torture inflicted in the past. In the Committee’s view, the credibility of the complainant’s claims has been irreparably damaged by the information provided by the State party regarding the material verification of the documents he produced on 3 October 2008, namely the death certificate and burial permit in respect of Mr. Gata, his supposed cousin, and the press clipping purporting to show that Mr. Gata was murdered because he had been mistaken for the complainant. 13.6 The Committee reiterates that, for the purposes of article 3 of the Convention, the individual concerned must face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being tortured. In this case, the Committee believes that the complainant has not produced sufficient satisfactory evidence or details to corroborate his story that the risk to him of being tortured is real and personal if he were to be returned to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Committee considers therefore that the complainant has not substantiated his claim that he would personally face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture upon his return to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 2 3 4 10 A/53/44, annex IX, CAT General Comment No 1, paragraph 6. See, inter alia, Communication No. 258/2004, Moistafa Dadar v. Canada, Decision adopted on 23 November 2005, and Communication No. 226/2003, T.A. v. Sweden, Decision adopted on 6 May 2005. Communication No. 256/2004, Mehdi Zare v. Sweden, Views adopted on 12 May 2006, para. 9.3; communication No. 214/2002, M.A.K. v. Germany, Views adopted on 12 May 2004, para. 13.5.