CAT/C/60/D/699/2015 have been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility, and declares them admissible with regard to article 3 of the Convention. Consideration of the merits 7.1 In accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, the Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties. 7.2 With regard to the complainant’s claim under article 3 of the Convention, the Committee must determine whether there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture should he be returned to Sri Lanka. In assessing this risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3 (2) of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the Committee recalls that the aim of such determination is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would be returned. 13 It follows that the existence of a pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not, as such, constitute sufficient reason for determining that a particular person would be in danger 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. Conversely, the absence of a consistent pattern of flagrant violations of human rights does not mean that a person might not be subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances. 7.3 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention, according to which the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. While the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable, the Committee notes that the burden of proof generally falls on the complainant, who must present an arguable case that he or she faces a foreseeable, real and personal risk.14 The Committee further recalls that, in accordance with its general comment No. 1, it gives considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned,15 while at the same time it is not bound by such findings and instead has the power, provided by article 22 (4) of the Convention, of free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case. 7.4 The Committee notes the human rights situation in Sri Lanka and the prevalence of violations against Tamils, including the abduction and torture of Tamils. 16 In assessing the risk of torture in the present case, the Committee notes the complainant’s argument that he would risk being tortured or killed if returned to Sri Lanka because he would be perceived as an LTTE supporter. This argument is based on the complainant’s past detention in Sri Lanka, his brother’s involvement with LTTE and the fact that the complainant is a failed asylum seeker who arrived in Canada aboard a ship that Sri Lankan authorities associate with LTTE. The complainant has also argued that he would be targeted by Sri Lankan authorities because he witnessed human rights abuses committed in the northern provinces during the country’s civil war. 7.5 With regard to the complainant’s alleged detention in 2009, the Committee observes that the complainant has failed to provide any detailed information or evidence regarding such detention, and that the alleged facts occurred 18 years ago. The Committee also notes the State party’s arguments that the Refugee Protection Division thoroughly assessed the complainant’s statements regarding his alleged detention but found that he lacked credibility, in particular regarding his alleged escape from the refugee camp and his 13 14 15 16 See, inter alia, communication No. 470/2011, X. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 24 November 2014, para. 7.2. See, inter alia, communications No. 203/2002, A.R. v. Netherlands, decision adopted on 14 November 2003 and No. 258/2004, Dadar v. Canada, decision adopted on 23 November 2005. See, inter alia, communication No. 356/2008, N.S. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 6 May 2010, para. 7.3. See CAT/C/LKA/CO/5, para. 11. 7