CAT/C/57/D/628/2014 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.19 7.4 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. 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). 7.5 The Committee notes the complainant’s claim that his forcible removal would amount to a violation of his rights under article 3 of the Convention, as he would be exposed to a risk of being tortured in Sri Lanka. The Committee also notes the complainant’s claim, which the State party has accepted, that in 2008 he was detained and beaten by members of the EPDP paramilitary group, who sought information about his son’s whereabouts and prior association with LTTE. The complainant also claimed that he was personally associated with the LTTE Sea Tigers from 1992 to 2000, although he did not participate in any combat. 7.6 The Committee notes that, in its decision of 13 March 2012, the State party’s Refugee Appeals Board considered the complainant’s claims regarding his prior abuse by members of EPDP and affiliation with the Sea Tigers to be facts. Nevertheless, the Board determined that those factors no longer gave rise to a real risk that he would be subjected to torture if returned to Sri Lanka. In this connection, the Committee observes that the Board considered that EPDP was no longer affiliated with the Government as a paramilitary force but rather had lost influence and held a status akin to that of a criminal gang, and therefore did not pose the same threat to the complainant as it might have in the past. Moreover, in the view of the State party, the complainant’s prior low-level affiliation with the LTTE Sea Tigers was insufficient to create a reasonable likelihood that he would attract adverse attention upon his return to Sri Lanka. The Committee also recalls that the State party has raised concerns about several alleged inconsistencies and omissions in the complainant’s claims to its asylum authorities. 7.7 In this connection, the Committee, while noting that the State party’s asylum authorities have considered the complainant’s allegations and have concluded that the complainant would not be at risk of being subjected to persecution or ill-treatment upon return to Sri Lanka, recalls that, while it gives considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned, it is not bound by such findings and instead has the power, provided by article 22 (4) of the Convention, of free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case. 20 7.8 Further, as to the complainant’s general claim that he risks being subjected to torture upon return to Sri Lanka, as all returning Tamils are automatically considered to be linked to LTTE, the Committee recalls that the occurrence of a consistent pattern of gross human rights violations in his or her country of origin is not sufficient in itself for concluding that a complainant runs a personal risk of torture there.21 In this context, the Committee refers to 19 20 21 See e.g. communications No. 467/2011, Y.B.F., S.A.Q. and Y.Y. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 31 May 2013, para. 7.2; No. 392/2009, R.S.M. v. Canada, decision adopted on 24 May 2013, para. 7.3; and No. 213/2002, E.J.V.M. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 8.3. Ibid. See for example communications No. 426/2010, R.D. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 11