CAT/C/58/D/599/2014 Consideration of the merits 8.1 In accordance with 22 (4) of the Convention, the Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties concerned. 8.2 In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the forced removal of the complainant to Sri Lanka would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return (“refouler”) 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. 8.3 The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to Sri Lanka. In assessing that risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant 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 in the country. However, the Committee recalls that the aim of such 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 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 8.4 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 The Committee further recalls that it gives considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned. However, under the terms of its general comment No. 1, the Committee is not bound by such findings and instead has the power, under article 22 (4) of the Convention, to freely assess the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case (para. 9). 15 8.5 The Committee notes the complainant’s claim that his forcible removal to Sri Lanka would amount to a violation of his rights under article 3 of the Convention as he would be exposed to the risk of being detained and tortured by the Sri Lankan authorities owing to the fact that his brother was an LTTE member; he was in contact with Tamil Congress members in Australia; and his status as a failed asylum seeker of Tamil ethnicity. 8.6 The Committee also notes the State party’s submission that, in the present case, the complainant did not provide credible evidence and 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 and that his claims were reviewed by the competent domestic authorities in accordance with domestic legislation and taking into account the current human rights situation in Sri Lanka. 13 14 15 See communication No. 550/2013, S.K. and others v. Sweden, decision adopted on 8 May 2015, para. 7.3. See A.R. v. Netherlands, para. 7.3. See communication No. 356/2008, N.S. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 6 May 2010, para. 7.3. 11