CAT/C/58/D/600/2014 protection visa. The complainant also claims that returnees who are believed to have departed in breach of the Sri Lanka Immigrants and Emigrants Act are arrested at the airport and brought before a court to apply for bail and might be placed in Negombo prison, possibly for some days until a bail hearing date becomes available. 7.6 The Committee also notes the State party’s assertions that, in the present case, the complainant has not provided any new credible evidence in his submissions to the Committee; 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; his claims have been thoroughly considered by a number of domestic decision makers, including the Refugee Review Tribunal, and subjected to judicial review by the Federal Circuit Court and the Federal Court of Australia; and each body specifically considered the claims and determined that they were not credible. With reference to the decision of the Tribunal and the ministerial intervention assessment, the State party also argues that failed asylum seekers and Tamils are not specifically targeted for adverse attention by the Sri Lankan authorities at the time of entry into the country and that there was no evidence to support a finding that the complainant had issues that would draw additional scrutiny or attention to him on his return or that would delay his release after security checks on his return to Sri Lanka. 7.7 In this context, the Committee refers to its concluding observations on the combined third and fourth periodic reports of Sri Lanka, 11 in which it expressed serious concern about reports suggesting that torture and ill-treatment perpetrated by State actors in Sri Lanka, both the military and the police, had continued in many parts of the country after the conflict with the LTTE had ended in May 2009.12 The Committee also refers to its concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in which it had noted evidence that some Sri Lankan Tamils had been victims of torture and ill-treatment following their forced or voluntary removal from the State party to Sri Lanka.13 7.8 In the present case, the Committee notes that the information submitted by the complainant regarding the events in Sri Lanka that led to his leaving the country were thoroughly evaluated by the State party’s authorities, who found it insufficient to show that he 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 Army or the Criminal Investigation Department are interested in him; that his fears regarding the soldiers whom he claims committed a murder and the investigation related to it are based on speculation; and that his family continues to live in their village and do not seem to have been disturbed by persons looking for him. The Committee further notes that, despite the complainant being a Tamil originating from the area previously controlled by LTTE, the Sri Lankan authorities did not suspected him of having any links with LTTE prior to his departure from the country. Although the complainant disagrees with the assessment of his accounts by the State party’s authorities, he has failed to demonstrate that the decision to refuse him a protection visa was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 7.9 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1, according to which the burden of presenting an arguable case lies with the complainant. In the Committee’s opinion, in the present case, the complainant has not discharged this burden of proof.14 11 12 13 14 See CAT/C/LKA/CO/3-4. Ibid., para. 6. See CAT/C/GBR/CO/5, para. 20. See communication No. 429/2010, Sivagnanaratnam v. Denmark, decision adopted on 11 November 2013, paras. 10.5-10.6. 11