CAT/C/68/D/855/2017 considered the steps taken to protect his confidentiality. The Tribunal also allowed the complainant to provide evidence that had not been presented because of his confidentiality concerns, and consequently, he provided documentary evidence regarding his uncle. The complainant has not claimed that this additional evidence would have changed the Tribunal’s decision if it had been presented during the first hearing or that there was more evidence that he had not been able to present to the Tribunal because of his confidentiality concerns. Moreover, he has not presented any evidence demonstrating that the Tribunal breached its obligation under the Migration Act not to publish any statement that might identify an applicant or his or her relatives, or any other confidentiality requirement. Second, contrary to his allegation, the Tribunal explicitly identified retaliation as the likely reason for the Alliance’s past harassment of the complainant, and considered it as a potential motivating factor for targeting him. The Tribunal nevertheless found that the prospects of any retaliation being carried out against him in future had been reduced by his lack of political activity since his departure from Sri Lanka. Lastly, the State party maintains that the complainant’s alleged risk of harm based on his association with his uncle is not sufficient to establish substantial grounds for believing that he would personally be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to Sri Lanka. 4.9 As regards the assessment of a personal risk of torture, the State party submits that the existence of a general risk of violence does not constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to that country, and the complainant did not establish the existence of additional grounds to show that he was at a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture if returned to Sri Lanka. The State party reiterates that the issues raised by the complainant, relating to the return of asylum seekers and to human rights violations in Sri Lanka, have been specifically and carefully considered by domestic processes, including against country information provided by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, non-governmental organizations and foreign affairs ministries of other Governments. 3 4.10 The State party concludes that the complainant did not provide sufficient evidence indicating that upon return to Sri Lanka, he would be personally at risk of treatment amounting to torture under article 1 of the Convention. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 31 March 2019, the complainant provided his comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits of the communication. Contesting the State party’s assertion that he has not provided any relevant new information to the Committee, the complainant claims that he provided further evidence of Dahanayake’s actions that had not been previously available. 5.2 The complainant alleges that some unidentified people recently attacked his house in Sri Lanka. He also submits that, on 15 April 2018, his uncle Bandu died under suspicious circumstances and that Dahanayake still wishes to carry out revenge and is going to focus more on him. 5.3 As regards the finding by the Australian authorities that he did not have a significant political profile, the complainant claims that those without such a profile may well be at a greater risk. Killing or torturing him is a way of putting significant pressure on his uncle, and it is easier for the opponents to undermine the base support for a politician by harassing his supporters. Claiming that there were problems at the tea factory, the complainant contests the State party’s statement that little had happened to him and the authorities had not targeted him. He adds that Sri Lanka continues to be politically unstable. 5.4 As regards the negative credibility finding of his accounts about his political activities, the complainant contends that the shifting nature of Sri Lankan politics confused him about the names and initials of political parties. His political activism was based on his loyalty to particular political figures and his capacity to gather young people, not on his knowledge about political ideas or policies. He claims to be able to discuss the main political actors in the area where he worked without having to trace the initials of the 3 Including the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Australia; the Border Agency of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada; and the Danish Immigration Service. 5