CAT/C/71/D/789/2016 8.4 As the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 9.2 In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the forcible removal of the complainant to Sri Lanka would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or return (“refouler”) a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 9.3 The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would personally be in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to Sri Lanka. In assessing that 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. As regards the case at hand, the Committee refers to its concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of Sri Lanka, in which it voiced serious concerns about reports suggesting that abductions, torture and ill-treatment perpetrated by State security forces in Sri Lanka, including by the police, had continued in many parts of the country after the conflict with LTTE had ended in May 2009.1 It also refers to credible reports by non-governmental organizations concerning the ill-treatment by the authorities of Sri Lanka of individuals who have been returned to the country.2 However, the Committee recalls that the aim of the evaluation to be undertaken in the context of individual complaints 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. 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.3 Moreover, although past events may be of relevance, the principal question before the Committee is whether the complainant currently runs a risk of torture if returned to Sri Lanka. 9.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 4 (2017), 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; and (d) sentence in absentia (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).4 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 The Committee notes the complainant’s claims that he would be at risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention if returned to Sri Lanka as he would be arrested for 1 2 3 4 6 CAT/C/LKA/CO/5, paras. 9–12. See also CAT/C/LKA/CO/3-4, para. 6. Freedom from Torture, Tainted Peace: Torture in Sri Lanka since May 2009 (London, 2015); and Human Rights Watch, World Report 2019 (New York, 2019). See, e.g., S.P.A. v. Canada (CAT/C/37/D/282/2005), para. 7.1; T.I. v. Canada (CAT/C/45/D/333/2007), para. 7.3; and A.M.A. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/45/D/344/2008), para. 7.2. T.Z. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/62/D/688/2015), para. 8.4.