CAT/C/54/D/440/2010 7.3 The Committee notes in this regard that the situation in Guinea indeed remains worrying, notably with regard to acts of torture that are carried out, inter alia, in places of deprivation of liberty, particularly police stations and military detention camps, 11 as well as with regard to the persistence of a practice of incommunicado detention and a climate of impunity, the latter due primarily to the failure of the law to conform to the Convention. 12 Nonetheless, the issue is to determine whether the complainant has reason to fear that, if returned to his country, he would personally be subjected to acts that violate the Convention. 7.4 All evidence submitted by the complainant was reviewed by the national authorities, who concluded that the author ’s allegations lacked credibility, given that there was nothing to show that he had returned to Guinea between his two requests for asylum; the new pieces of evidence, such as the summonses and the wanted -persons notice, were submitted late in the proceedings for no apparent reason and their authenticity was questionable; and the complainant never claimed that he was mistreated during his alleged detention in October 2009. The Committee notes that the allegation of torture was made for the first time before the Committee, and not the national authorities, without it however being substantiated with a detailed description of the events reported. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that the material on file does not permit it to consider that the Swiss authorities, which examined the case, failed to conduct an in-depth investigation into the complainant’s allegations during the asylum and reconsideration procedures. There is no evidence in the complaint before the Committee to demonstrate that the complainant faces a foreseeable, real and personal danger of being subjected to torture in his country of origin. 7.5 The Committee recalls paragraph 5 of its general comment No. 1, according to which the burden of presenting an arguable case lies with the author of a communication. In the circumstances of this case, in the Committee ’s opinion, the complainant has not discharged that burden of proof. 8. In the light of the above considerations and in the absence of further pertinent information on file, the Committee, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention, concludes that the expulsion of the complainant to Guinea by the Stat e party would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. __________________ 11 12 GE. 15-10885 See CAT/C/GIN/CO/1, paragraph 9. Ibid., paras., 8. 11, 12 and 15. 7/7