CAT/C/71/D/789/2016 his illegal departure from Sri Lanka and that he would be at risk of being subjected to torture and ill-treatment during his detention owing to his imputed support of LTTE. 9.6 The Committee also notes the State party’s submission that the claims presented by the complainant have been thoroughly considered by the State party’s authorities, which found that he would not be at risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention if returned to Sri Lanka. It further notes the findings of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection that the complainant travelled to Dubai in 2011 for employment opportunities and not for fear of harm, as well as the finding, based on court transcripts, that the complainant had not been arrested in 2012 in a random act but rather in the context of his attempted illegal departure from the country. The Committee notes that the complainant’s claims of having been subjected to torture and ill-treatment while detained in 2012 were found to be not credible by the Refugee Review Tribunal owing to discrepancies in his account of the events and because the medical note he presented was dated three years after the alleged incident had occurred and did not support the complainant’s allegation of having been subjected to sexual violence. The Committee also notes that the State party’s authorities found that the complainant’s claim that he had not grown up in an LTTE-controlled area, as he had initially stated in his application for asylum, was not credible, as were other elements of his account. 9.7 The Committee notes the complainant’s claims that he was not given a fair opportunity to present evidence to prove that he had been subjected to torture, that the evidence that he was able to present was not fairly assessed and that he was not given culturally appropriate means by which to raise his claims of torture. It also notes the State party’s arguments that the complainant’s claims were thoroughly assessed by the State party’s authorities and that the complainant was represented at the protection visa interview stage and during the hearing before the Refugee Review Tribunal and that any concerns regarding his capacity to engage in the process, or any special consideration that ought to have been afforded, could have been raised on those occasions. The Committee therefore finds that the complainant has not shown how the authorities’ assessment of his application for asylum was affected by a lack of independence or impartiality, or that the authorities of the State party, which considered the case, failed to conduct a proper investigation into his allegations. 10. In the light of the above considerations, and on the basis of all the information submitted to it by the parties, the Committee considers that, in the present case, the complainant has failed to adduce sufficient evidence and to adequately substantiate his contention that the alleged past events would attract the real interest of the authorities of Sri Lanka. Having also considered the general situation of human rights in Sri Lanka, the Committee is of the view that the complainant has failed to substantiate his claims that his removal to Sri Lanka would amount to a real, foreseeable, personal and present risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention.5 11. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the complainant’s removal to Sri Lanka by the State party would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 5 General comment No. 4 (2017), para. 38. 7