5.6The complainant argues that the criteria applied by the Committee in the Elmi v. Australiac case on the broadened notion of “public official or other person acting in an official capacity” applies also to the role of LTTE in the areas under its control in Sri Lanka. He refers to the exercise by LTTE of quasi-governmental powers in the north and east of the country where it has been in control, the fact that it has been accepted as a negotiating party to the peace negotiations, and that it has recently opened a political office in Jaffna, with the support of the Government of Sri Lanka. Thus, the complainant argues, his fear of torture by LTTE is material in assessing the risk of a breach of article 3. 5.7The complainant reiterates that his past experiences of torture caused him severe mental suffering and physical injuries. He argues that due to the unsettled situation in Sri Lanka it is justified to state that he would, in addition to a substantial risk of torture, feel extremely anxious about life in Sri Lanka. He points out that according to his psychiatrist he is in need of specialized treatment and is thus mentally vulnerable to the emotional stress that life in Sri Lanka would inevitably cause him. Thus, this in itself may constitute suffering tantamount to torture. State party’s supplementary comments 6.1On 28 February 2003, the State party submits that the new information provided by the complainant on his activities on behalf of TELO is unreliable as it had never been mentioned by the complainant until his letter to the Committee of 4 November 2002. His explanation that he was afraid that LTTE would find out about his activities does not explain his failure to mention this incident earlier in the same way that he mentioned his activities carried out on behalf of PLOTE, which also acted against LTTE. Moreover, given that the alleged activities took place nearly 20 years ago, it would be unlikely that the complainant would be subject to retaliation by LTTE. 6.2The State party also submits that the fact that the complainant returned to Sri Lanka without any adverse consequences after being refused asylum in Germany supports the view that he would not be personally at risk of being subjected to torture upon his return to Sri Lanka. It refers to the reports submitted by the complainant on the human rights situation in Sri Lanka and observes that the Directorate of Immigration as well as the national courts already took these reports into account when considering his application for asylum. It also observes that, at least on two occasions, the Committee found that LTTE may not be considered an authority within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention.d Issues and proceedings before the Committee 7.1The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. 7.2The issue before the Committee is whether or not the forced return of the complainant to Sri Lanka would violate the obligation of Finland under article 3 of the Convention not to expel a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 7.3In reaching this decision, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. The aim of this determination, however, is to establish whether the individuals concerned would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would return. It follows that the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his return to that country; additional grounds must exist to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. Similarly, the absence of a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights does not mean that a person cannot be considered to be in danger of being subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances. 7.4The Committee refers its general comment No. 1 on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22, paragraph 6, of which reads: “Bearing in mind that the State party and the Committee are obliged to assess whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the petitioner would be in danger of being subjected to torture were he/she to be expelled, returned or extradited, the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. However, the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable.” 7.5The Committee observes that the State party’s obligation to refrain from forcibly returning a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture is directly linked to the definition of torture as found in article 1 of the Convention. For the purposes of the Convention, according to article 1, “the term ‘torture’ means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity”. 7.6As to the possibility of the complainant suffering torture at the hands of the State upon his return to Sri Lanka, the Committee has taken due note of the complainant’s claim that he was previously detained and tortured by members of the Sri Lankan army. It further observes that the complainant provided medical reports attesting to injuries that were “possibly caused by torture”, though none of the reports conclusively confirms that he was tortured during his detention in 1998. The State party does not challenge the authenticity of these reports but notes that the reports themselves attest to a gradual improvement of the author’s health and that treatment for his current medical condition would be available in Sri Lanka. The State party does not concede that such torture as the complainant might have been subjected to was suffered at the hands of the Sri Lankan army - in any case, such events would have occurred years