CAT/C/61/D/614/2014 8.5 In the present case, the complainant claims that he would be detained, tortured and probably killed upon his return to Sri Lanka by the Sri Lanka Army or affiliated paramilitary groups for his participation in 2005 in the school play that was organized by LTTE, due to which he is suspected of being an LTTE supporter. The Committee notes the complainant’s claims that in 2008, an unidentified armed gang came to his house and questioned him about LTTE; that in June 2008 two men attempted to abduct him from school; that between October 2009 and January 2011 he was hiding at St. Mary’s Cathedral in Jaffna, since armed gangs regularly visited his family to look for him; and that in May 2011, the Sri Lanka Army made a house check during which the complainant was attacked and beaten. The Committee also notes the complainant’s claims that in June 2011 he was abducted by a large group of men in a white van and was beaten and sexually assaulted; and that one of the gang members let him escape subsequent to the payment of a bribe by his father. The Committee further notes the complainant’s allegations that when he escaped to Malaysia to avoid further persecution, the Sri Lanka Army and armed gangs went to his home in Sri Lanka and interrogated his brother, and that he would be persecuted again by paramilitary groups affiliated with the Sri Lanka Army upon his return to the country. 8.6 The Committee notes 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 notes that the authorities of the State party concluded that his claims about harassment during 2008 and 2011 and about his alleged abduction in June 2011 were not credible. The Committee also notes that the State party did not accept that the complainant was suspected of being a supporter of LTTE and was of interest to paramilitary groups of the Sri Lanka Army as a consequence of his participation in the school play in 2005. Rather, it considered that the fact that the complainant was able to depart from Sri Lanka, using his own passport without incident, demonstrated the contrary. The decision makers relied on country information according to which the security situation in Sri Lanka had improved since the cessation of hostilities in 2009 and the complainant would not be targeted for reasons of his Tamil ethnicity, membership of a particular social group of young men or imputed political opinions as a supporter of LTTE. Concerning the alleged targeting of other participants in the school play in 2005, and the alleged interrogation of his brother by the Sri Lanka Army and armed gangs while he was in Malaysia in 2011, the State party’s authorities did not consider the complainant to be a credible witness in relation to a large portion of his claims. Further, the State party considered that he had not provided corroborating evidence in support of his claims or to demonstrate that the authorities in Sri Lanka had been looking for him in the recent past or were otherwise interested in him. Finally, the Committee notes the information provided by the State party according to which the complainant was not detained or charged by the Sri Lankan police upon his return to Sri Lanka and was allowed to freely leave the airport. 8.7 The Committee observes that the complainant has not submitted his comments in response to the observations by the State party, and has not replied to any of the reminders sent by the Committee, which may be a consequence of his removal to Sri Lanka. Regarding the complainant’s claim that he risks being subjected to torture upon return to Sri Lanka owing to his status as a young Tamil with real or perceived links with LTTE, and as a failed asylum seeker, the Committee agrees that Sri Lankans of Tamil ethnicity with a real or perceived prior personal or familial connection to LTTE, facing forcible return to Sri Lanka, may face a risk of torture. In this connection, the Committee notes the current human rights situation in Sri Lanka and refers to its concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of Sri Lanka, in which it expressed concern, inter alia, about reports regarding the persistence of abductions, torture and ill-treatment perpetrated by State security forces in Sri Lanka, including the military and the police, which had continued in many parts of the country after the conflict with LTTE had ended in May 2009,26 and to 26 See CAT/C/LKA/CO/5, paras. 9-12. 9