CAT/C/68/D/855/2017 of being subjected to torture on return to that country; additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. 6 9.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, according to which the Committee will assess “substantial grounds” and consider the risk of torture as foreseeable, personal, present and real when the existence of credible facts relating to the risk by itself, at the time of its decision, would affect the rights of the complainant under the Convention in case of his or her deportation. Indications of personal risk may include, but are not limited to: (a) the complainant’s ethnic background; (b) political affiliation or political activities of the complainant or his or her family members; (c) arrest or detention without guarantee of a fair treatment and trial; (d) sentence in absentia; and (e) previous torture (para. 45). With respect to the merits of a communication submitted under article 22 of the Convention, the burden of proof is upon the author of the communication, who must present an arguable case, that is, submit substantiated arguments showing that the danger of being subjected to torture is foreseeable, present, personal and real (para. 38).7 The Committee also recalls that it gives considerable weight to findings of fact made by organs of the State party concerned, however, it is not bound by such findings, as it can make a free assessment of the information available to it in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, taking into account all the circumstances relevant to each case (para. 50). 9.5 In the present case, the complainant claims that he would face a risk of torture if returned to Sri Lanka because he was harassed, threatened, abducted and shot at by the supporters of his former political party, the United People’s Freedom Alliance, after changing his political allegiance to the United National Party in 2010. The Committee also notes the complainant’s claim that the past harassment was in fact part of a campaign by his uncle’s political rival to ruin his uncle’s career, and that he now faces an even greater risk of harm because of the death of his uncle, who would have protected him. The Committee also takes note of his contention that he is at risk of harm because of his profile as a failed asylum seeker, particularly given that he was the only Sinhalese on the boat to Australia and would be suspected of having aided the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam sympathizers on the same boat to flee from Sri Lanka. The Committee is also mindful of his claims about the conduct and findings of the Refugee Review Tribunal (see para. 3.3 above). 9.6 The Committee notes, however, the State party’s submission that the complainant failed to provide credible evidence and to substantiate his allegations that there was a foreseeable, real and personal risk that he would be subjected to torture by the authorities if returned to Sri Lanka, and that his claims have been thoroughly reviewed as part of refugee status determination and complementary protection processes, in accordance with domestic legislation and taking into account the current human rights situation in Sri Lanka. The Committee also notes that the authorities of the State party considered it plausible that the complainant may have been subjected to some harassment and threats by the supporters of the United People’s Freedom Alliance, but noted that despite the alleged ill will of the Alliance and the arrest and imprisonment of political opponents during this period, the complainant had remained in Sri Lanka for two additional years, during which neither the Alliance nor any other authorities ever attempted to arrest him or even visited his home. The State party also noted that the Alliance had had every opportunity to harm him if they had intended to, given that he had frequently travelled around the country, inter alia, to visit his wife in Colombo every weekend. The authorities of the State party found that this apparent lack of interest in harming him suggested that the complainant had been of little concern to the Alliance or protected by his family connections. The State party also maintained that his alleged risk of harm based on his relationship with his uncle did not establish a personal risk of harm upon return and that that risk no longer existed, as the uncle, allegedly the actual target of the harassment, had died in April 2018. 9.7 In the present communication, the Committee observes that the State party’s authorities considered the complainant’s statements and evidence as well as country information, but did not accept many of his accounts regarding his past political activities and subsequent harassment and attacks for being inconsistent, lacking in details and not 6 7 8 See S.P.A. v. Canada (CAT/C/37/D/282/2005), T.I. v. Canada (CAT/C/45/D/333/2007) and A.M.A. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/45/D/344/2008). T.Z. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/62/D/688/2015), para. 8.4.