CAT/C/79/D/1055/2021 on 4 December 2019 and a wanted notice dated 17 December 2019 that related to him. The Committee notes that the State party shed doubt on the authenticity of these documents on the basis that the complainant had not been in Cameroon. 7.12 The Committee notes the complainant’s assertion that the inconsistencies in his various statements do not mean that they are false, and that it is up to the person examining them to take into account the various personal or political reasons that may lead an individual to make false allegations of torture or to exaggerate the seriousness of an incident. The Committee also notes the complainant’s claim that certain inconsistencies in his statements can be explained by the fact that he was subjected to abuse. Insofar as the complainant is unable to establish the veracity of his claim concerning this abuse, the Committee considers that it is not possible for it to conclude that there are sufficient grounds for doubting the assessment made by the State Secretariat for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court in connection with his asylum application. 7.13 While the Committee is concerned about the numerous reports of human rights violations, particularly against persons in the English-speaking separatist regions, and political opponents, including members of Mouvement pour la renaissance du Cameroun, it recalls that, for the purposes of article 3 of the Convention, complainants must run a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being tortured in the country to which they are returned. In the light of the above, the Committee believes that such a risk has not been established. It considers that the documents and information submitted by the complainant do not dispel the doubts expressed by the State party’s authorities as to their reliability and are not sufficient to establish that he would run a foreseeable, present, personal and real risk of being subjected to torture if he was returned to Cameroon.34 7.14 The Committee refers to paragraph 38 of its general comment No. 4 (2017), according to which the burden of proof is upon the complainant, who has to present an arguable case. 35 In the light of the above, and in the circumstances of the present case, the Committee considers that the complainant has not discharged the burden of proof, having failed to provide sufficient information to establish that the authorities of the State party have treated him in a manner that might be contrary to article 3 of the Convention. 8. In the light of the above, the Committee considers that the information submitted by the complainant is insufficient to substantiate his claim that he would face a foreseeable, present, personal and real risk of torture if he were returned to Cameroon, in violation of article 3 of the Convention. 9. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the deportation of the complainant to Cameroon, if it takes place, would not constitute a violation by the State party of article 3 of the Convention. 34 35 GE.24-09258 R.K. and L.B.M. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/75/D/962/2019), para. 6.7. T.M. v. Sweden (CAT/C/68/D/860/2018), para. 12.13; and S.B. v. Cameroon (CAT/C/75/D/1034/2020), para. 8.6. 11