CAT/C/56/D/591/2014 considerations, pursuant to article 3 (2) of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the Committee recalls that the aim of the evaluation is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would be returned. It follows that the existence of a pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute sufficient reason for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture on return to that country; additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. Conversely, the absence of a consistent pattern of flagrant violations of human rights does not mean that a person might not be subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances.13 10.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention, 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), the Committee recalls that the burden of proof generally falls on the complainant, who must present an arguable case that he or she faces a foreseeable, real and personal risk.14 Although, under the terms of its general comment No. 1, the Committee is free to assess the facts on the basis of the full set of circumstances in every case, considerable weight is given to the findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned (para. 9). 15 10.5 In the present case, the complainant claims that he will be detained and tortured if he is returned to Sri Lanka as he is a young man of Tamil ethnicity and is wanted by the Sri Lankan authorities owing to his history of association with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). In that connection, he claims that he was subjected to ill-treatment while he was detained in Sri Lanka by the Criminal Investigation Department from 17 to 20 September 2010, as the Department had found a number of items belonging to LTTE members in his house. The complainant also claims that he will risk being subjected to torture given his status as a failed asylum seeker. The Committee takes note of the State party’s submission that, in the present case, the complainant has not provided credible evidence and has failed to substantiate that there was a foreseeable, real and personal risk that he would be subjected to torture by the authorities if he is returned to Sri Lanka; that his claims have been reviewed by the competent domestic authorities, in accordance with domestic legislation and taking into account the current human rights situation in Sri Lanka; and that the domestic authorities were not convinced that the complainant fell within the category of persons entitled to protection under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. 10.6 In the light of the above and taking into account the information provided by the parties, the Committee is of the view that there are inconsistencies in the complainant’s story that undermine the credibility of his claims that he would be at risk of being subjected to torture by the authorities upon return to Sri Lanka given that he is a young man of Tamil ethnicity and that he is wanted by the Sri Lankan authorities owing to his association with the LTTE. The Committee is also of the view that the complainant has not submitted any objective evidence to substantiate his claim. In particular, the Committee notes that the complainant claims that he was tortured by the Criminal Investigation Department while in detention in Sri Lanka in September 2010. In that regard, the Committee notes that in his 13 14 15 See, for example, communication No. 550/2013, S.K. and others v. Sweden, decision adopted on 8 May 2015, para. 7.3. See also A.R. v. the Netherlands, para. 7.3. See, for example, communication No. 356/2008, N.S. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 6 May 2010, para. 7.3. 13