CAT/C/58/D/599/2014 observations and recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment on the official joint visit to Sri Lanka, with the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, from 29 April to 7 May 2016, in which it is noted that “torture is a common practice” and the “current legal framework and the lack of reform within the structures of the armed forces, police, Attorney-General’s Office and judiciary perpetuate the real risk that the practice of torture will continue”.18 The Committee also takes note of credible reports published by NGOs concerning the treatment by the Sri Lankan authorities of individuals returned to Sri Lanka.19 The Committee considers that all of the above-mentioned reports show that Sri Lankans of Tamil ethnicity with a prior personal or familial connection to LTTE and facing forcible return to Sri Lanka may face a risk of torture. 20 8.12 The Committee also notes that the existence of a general risk of violence in a country does not constitute sufficient grounds for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to that country and that additional grounds must exist to show the individual concerned would be personally at risk. In the Committee’s opinion, the complainant has not established the existence of additional grounds to show that he would be at a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture if returned to Sri Lanka. The issues relating to human rights violations of returned asylum seekers were also considered by all the Australian processes, including the protection visa assessment by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and the independent merits review by the Refugee Review Tribunal. The Committee notes that the State party’s authorities, in their assessment of the complainant’s asylum application, also considered the possible risk of ill-treatment of failed asylum seekers upon return to Sri Lanka and is of the view that, in the present case, the State party’s authorities gave appropriate consideration to the complainant’s claim. 8.13 The Committee further notes the State party’s submission that the complainant did not substantiate his claim regarding his activities in Australia. According to the file, the State party sought to verify the claims, but considered them not credible in that the complainant did not explain how or why his contacts with members of the Tamil Congress would put him at risk of torture. The issue of the complainant’s Tamil ethnicity and alleged links with LTTE were also thoroughly assessed. Both the Department of Immigration and Border Protection that carried out the protection visa assessment and the Refugee Review Tribunal found that the author did not have any form of connection to LTTE nor was he suspected of such links nor was he a criminal suspect. The complainant also did not substantiate his claim that detention in Sri Lanka would constitute degrading treatment, which would not in itself suffice to establish that a forcible removal of the complainant would entail a violation of his rights under article 3 of the Convention. 18 19 20 Preliminary observations and recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, Mr. Juan E. Mendez, on the official joint visit to Sri Lanka, 29 April to 7 May 2016 (Colombo, 7 May 2016). See Edmund Rice Centre, “Australian sponsored torture in Sri Lanka? The unforeseen consequences of supporting a brutal regime to stop the boats at any cost”, 12 August 2015, available from http://erc.me/index.php?module=documents&JAS_DocumentManager_op=downloadFile&JAS_File_ id=522; Amnesty International, “Sri Lankan asylum seekers tortured after being forcibly returned from Australia”, 3 September 2010, available at: www.amnesty.org.au/news/comments/23625; and Human Rights Watch, “UK: Suspend deportations of Tamils to Sri Lanka”, 29 May 2012, available at www.hrw.org/print/news/2012/05/29/uk-suspend-deportations-tamils-sri-lanka. See communication No. 628/2014, J.N. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 13 May 2016, para. 7.9. 13