CAT/C/71/D/754/2016 adverse information from that interview. It also notes that the complainant was afforded several opportunities to provide written and oral submissions. While taking note of the complainant’s argument that the authorities of the State party did not duly consider his documentary submissions, the Committee finds, in the light of the foregoing, that this argument does not resolve the identified credibility concerns. As for the police complaint, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the complainant does not substantiate his claim that the police did not act on it owing to pressure from influential people. Considering the different elements of his claim, the Committee finds that the fact that the complainant was not aware that the Sri Lankan police had followed up on the complaint does not show that his return to Sri Lanka would engage article 3 of the Convention. 10.7 The Committee further notes the complainant’s claim that the Sri Lankan authorities would have an adverse interest in him owing to his involvement with the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress, his Tamil ethnicity and Muslim faith, and his status of a failed asylum seeker who left Sri Lanka illegally, especially following the Easter bombings. The Committee further notes that the authorities of the State party have observed that Muslims and Tamils are not persecuted in Sri Lanka on a general basis. As for the situation in Sri Lanka following the Easter bombings, the Committee finds that this does not discharge the complainant from the requirement of adducing additional grounds to show that he would be personally at risk. The authorities of the State party also found that the complainant’s brother continued to live at the family home and worked for the Government, without indications that he had suffered harm, had been targeted or had hidden. Given that his brother, as noted by the State party, would have had a higher political profile, as a candidate for the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress, than the complainant, the Committee is not convinced, in the present case, that the combination of the complainant’s involvement with the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress, his Tamil ethnicity or his Muslim faith shows that he would be personally at risk. The Committee takes into account, in this regard, that the complainant has not claimed that he has, or any family members have, been detained on suspicion of supporting LTTE and that he claims to have openly campaigned for his brother and worked in a polling station in the election for the municipal authorities. 10.8 As for the complainant’s status as a failed asylum seeker who left Sri Lanka illegally, the Committee notes that the authorities of the State party accepted that the complainant might be remanded in conditions that are overcrowded, unsanitary and uncomfortable upon return, but that laws relating to illegal departure are of a general application and that such treatment does not engage the State party’s non-refoulement obligation. The Committee also notes that the complainant acknowledges that illegal departure is known to only generate a short period of detention. The Committee finds that the complainant’s claim that his denunciation of electoral violence means that there is no assurance about the length of detention does not show a personal risk of a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 11. In the light of the above considerations, the Committee concludes that, in the particular circumstances of the present case, the evidence and circumstances invoked by the complainant have not adduced sufficient grounds for believing that he would face a real, foreseeable, personal and present risk of being subjected to torture in case of his removal to Sri Lanka. The Committee thus considers that the material on the file does not enable it to conclude that the return of the complainant would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 12. In these circumstances, 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. 10