CAT/C/71/D/904/2018 personal, present and real when the existence of credible facts relating to the risk by itself, at the time of its decision, would affect the rights of the complainant under the Convention in case of his or her deportation. Indications of personal risk may include, but are not limited to: (a) the complainant’s ethnic background; (b) political affiliation or political activities of the complainant or his or her family members; (c) arrest or detention without guarantee of a fair trial and treatment; (d) sentence in absentia; and (e) previous torture (para. 45).4 With respect to the merits of a communication submitted under article 22 of the Convention, the burden of proof is upon the author of the communication, who must present an arguable case, that is, submit substantiated arguments showing that the danger of being subjected to torture is foreseeable, present, personal and real. However, when complainants are in a situation where they cannot elaborate on their case, such as when they have demonstrated that they have no possibility of obtaining documentation relating to their allegation of torture or have been deprived of their liberty, the burden of proof is reversed, and the State party concerned must investigate the allegations and verify the information on which the complaint is based.5 The Committee also recalls that it gives considerable weight to findings of fact made by organs of the State party concerned; however, it is not bound by such findings, as it can make a free assessment of the information available to it in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, taking into account all the circumstances relevant to each case.6 7.5 In assessing the risk of torture in the present case, the Committee notes the complainant’s claim that she would face a risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention if she were returned to Ethiopia since she was presumed to have subscribed to particular political views as a consequence of the activities that her relatives had performed within the Ogaden National Liberation Front and because she left Ethiopia even though she was supposed to return to prison to serve her sentence. The Committee takes note of her contention that several of her relatives were killed because of their association with the Ogaden National Liberation Front and that she had been imprisoned, tortured and subjected to various forms of ill-treatment, including sexual violence, by representatives of the government of Ethiopia. The Committee is mindful of the medical/psychological report brought before it as proof of the complainant’s allegations of torture. It notes the complainant’s claim that the Swedish asylum authorities were wrong to determine that her submissions were not credible, as her narrative had been thorough and consistent and she had provided explanations for all the alleged discrepancies detected in her account. 7.6 Nonetheless, the Committee observes that the State party’s authorities considered that the complainant’s narrative was not credible because she provided inconsistent and vague statements concerning essential elements of her account. In this respect, the Committee notes the State party’s assertion that the complainant’s explanations for these inconsistencies have not been accepted as she failed to duly challenge the minutes of the hearings, nor did she mention before the authorities that she feared to confront the interpreter because he was a man. In addition, the complainant has never put before the domestic authorities that her medical condition, namely the progression of chronic post-traumatic stress disorder, may have interfered with her ability to provide complete and coherent accounts relevant to her case. The Committee also notes the State party’s position that the medical/psychological report issued by the Swedish Red Cross Treatment Centre was not in itself considered sufficient to plausibly demonstrate that the complainant faces risks of threat if returned to Ethiopia. The Committee further notes the State party’s statement that the Migration Court also questioned the complainant’s narrative about the circumstances of her release and her escape to Sweden, especially because it found it implausible that she had been able travel to Sweden without seeking medical help in spite of her poor medical condition and that she could leave Ethiopia even though she had been under the surveillance of the Government of Ethiopia. 7.7 In carrying out its assessment, the Committee observes that the complainant did not report any irregularities in the national asylum proceedings apart from mentioning in her last submission to the Committee that the proceedings were conducted in the presence of several 4 5 6 General comment No. 4 (2017), para. 45. Ibid., para. 38. Ibid., para. 50. 7