CAT/C/59/D/649/2015 7.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1 (1997), according to which the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. While the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable (para. 6), it must be personal and present. In that regard, in previous decisions the Committee determined that the risk of torture must be foreseeable, real and personal. The Committee recalls that under the terms of general comment No. 1, it gives considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned, while at the same time it is not bound by such findings and instead has the power, provided by article 22 (4) of the Convention to freely assess the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case. 7.5 The Committee notes the complainant’s claims that he would be at a real and personal risk of torture if returned to Sri Lanka because in October 2002 he was drafted into LTTE, because he remained with LTTE for four years, during which time he attended an LTTE school and was then assigned to work at the LTTE field hospital, where he remained until he absconded in 2006, and because of his illegal departure from Sri Lanka. The Committee notes, however, that the responsible organs of the State party had thoroughly evaluated all the evidence presented by the complainant and found it to lack credibility. The Committee also notes the State party’s assertions that, in the present case, the complainant has not provided any credible evidence in his submissions to the Committee, that he has failed to substantiate that there was a foreseeable, real and personal risk that he would be subjected to torture by the Sri Lankan authorities if he were to be returned to his country of origin, that his claims have been thoroughly considered by a number of domestic decision makers, including the Refugee Review Tribunal, and have been the subject of a judicial review by the Federal Circuit Court and the Federal Court, and that each body specifically considered the claims and determined that they were not credible. With reference to the Refugee Review Tribunal’s decision and the complainant’s request for ministerial intervention, the State party also argues that persons whose asylum application has been rejected and Tamils are not specifically targeted for adverse attention from the Sri Lankan authorities at the time of entry and that there is no evidence to support a finding that the complainant had issues that would subject him to additional scrutiny or attention or that would delay his release after the performance of security checks upon return to Sri Lanka. 7.6 The Committee refers to its consideration of the fifth periodic report of Sri Lanka, 19 during which it voiced serious concerns about reports suggesting that abductions, torture and ill-treatment perpetrated by State security forces in Sri Lanka, including the police, had continued in many parts of the country after the conflict with LTTE had ended in May 2009. 20 The Committee has also expressed concern at the reprisals against victims and witnesses of acts of torture and at the acts of abduction and torture in unacknowledged detention facilities, and enquired whether a prompt, impartial and effective investigation of any such acts has been undertaken.21 7.7 In the present case, the Committee notes, however, that the information submitted by the complainant regarding the events in Sri Lanka that led to his departure from the country were thoroughly evaluated by the State party’s authorities, which found the information insufficient to show that the complainant was in need of protection. The Committee also notes that the complainant has not presented any evidence in support of his claims that the Sri Lanka authorities were interested in him before he left the country and that the only evidence he presented that the Sri Lankan authorities were interested in him after that time was the copy of a complaint made to the police by the complainant’s father, detailing an incident in which unidentified armed persons visited the home of the complainant’s father and asked about the complainant’s whereabouts. The Committee observes that the above is 19 20 21 See CAT/C/SR.1472 and 1475. See CAT/C/LKA/CO/3-4, para. 6. See CAT/C/SR.1472, paras. 36 and 42, and CAT/C/SR.1475, paras. 10 and 27. 11