CAT/C/55/D/555/2013 7.8 The Committee also takes note of the complainant’s submission that the Refugee Appeals Board wrongfully denied his request for an oral hearing, because an oral hearing before the Board would have given him the opportunity to convince the Board that he is indeed an ethnic Uighur. The Committee, however, observes that in the present case, the complainant had two interviews with the Danish Immigration Service, during which he had the opportunity to present his case and elaborate on the evidence. During the interviews, the complainant was asked that question and offered no consistent account regarding his ethnicity. The Committee observes that the complainant has not explained how an oral hearing before the Refugee Appeals Board would have given him the opportunity to substantiate his claims of persecution and torture or to prove his ethnicity in a way that was different from the opportunities he had already been given in the two interviews. 7.9 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 complainant has not discharged this burden of proof. 15 8. In the light of the considerations above, and on the basis of all the information submitted by the complainant, the Committee considers that the complainant has not provided sufficient evidence to enable it to conclude that his forcible removal to his country of origin would expose him to a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention. 9. The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, therefore concludes that the complainant’s removal to China would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 15 See communication No. 429/2010, M.S. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 11 November 2013, paras. 10.5 and 10.6. 11