CAT/C/60/D/699/2015 the complainant had not been harmed in the past in Sri Lanka because of his brother’s alleged association and that that did not justify a future risk for the complainant, especially considering that his brother had died some 18 years ago, long before Sri Lanka took steps towards reconciliation. Additionally, the Refugee Protection Division and the Federal Court determined that the complainant’s wife, children and parents, who shared the same family ties, continued to reside in Sri Lanka without apparent difficulty or significant harassment. 4.9 The State party recalls that it is not for the Committee to review evidence or reassess findings of fact made by national courts and tribunals. The complainant’s allegations and supporting evidence are substantially the same as those previously considered by national instances. In particular, the Refugee Protection Division heard the complainant, who had legal representation, and sought clarifications during the oral hearing on the many factual inconsistencies regarding his past detention and persecution. On that basis, the Division determined that the complainant was not credible regarding his need for international protection. The complainant has therefore failed to establish a prima facie case that he would risk being subjected to torture if returned to Sri Lanka in 2016. 4.10 With regard to the complainant’s status as a failed asylum seeker who entered Canada aboard the MV Ocean Lady, the State party notes that, as argued by the Refugee Protection Division and the Federal Court, there is no evidence that the complainant would be perceived as an LTTE supporter by Sri Lankan authorities, either by virtue of having travelled on that ship or having made an unsuccessful refugee claim in Canada. While acknowledging that the UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines indicate that many returnees undergo security screening by immigration officials or members of the State intelligence service upon return, the State party argues that, in the absence of significant links with LTTE, such verifications do not constitute a real and personal risk of irreparable harm. In fact, both UNHCR and the International Organization for Migration have undertaken voluntary repatriation programmes to Sri Lanka in which over 1,900 individuals participated in 2011. Additionally, the complainant travelled on his own passport and left his country legally, and there is no indication that there is an arrest warrant pending against him or that he is suspected of having significant ties with LTTE or involvement in political opposition activities, either in Sri Lanka or in Canada. 4.11 The State party refers to the five new documents submitted to the Committee by the complainant after the conclusion of national asylum proceedings. The first is a letter from his wife dated 30 August 2015, reporting that unidentified persons had visited her twice in August 2015 and threatened her, following which she filed two police reports and sought protection at a local human rights office. In that regard, the State party notes that the complainant has submitted neither the alleged police reports nor the attestation from the human rights office. The second document is a letter from the complainant’s father dated 7 September 2015, alleging several visits by persons purporting to be affiliated with the Sri Lankan intelligence agency inquiring about the complainant’s whereabouts. This letter has not been independently corroborated. The third is a letter from the Secretary-General of the Tamil National People’s Front. No weight should be accorded to it as it exceeds the complainant’s claims, alleging that the Sri Lankan military “started to threaten and torture the complainant frequently and even tried to kill him”, and it does not provide the source of the information. As to the letter of support by a family friend who has lived in the United States of America since 1983 and who confirmed the risk of torture or death if the complainant should return to Sri Lanka, and an affidavit from a former aid worker in the Middle East who has never met the author but claims to “fear for his situation in Sri Lanka”, the State party determines that both documents were prepared without personal knowledge of the complainant’s circumstances in Sri Lanka. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 In his submission dated 15 April 2016, the complainant states that he submitted a letter on 15 September 2015 to the judge who was to decide on his request for judicial review of the pre-removal risk assessment decision, informing him of the complaint submitted to the Committee and raising the issue of collaboration between the Canada Border Services Agency and the Terrorism Investigation Division in Colombo, which has been heavily involved in the detention and torture of Sri Lankan deportees. However, the 5