CAT/C/59/D/633/2014 Sri Lanka and encouraging Tamils to regroup militarily. The complainant claimed that if he was returned to Sri Lanka, he would be arbitrarily detained and interrogated on that very point, and that while being interrogated, he would be at risk of torture, cruel and inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment. The Department of Immigration and Border Protection considered that speech and the complainant’s claim that he would be arbitrarily detained and interrogated. Country of origin information indicated that the risk of torture and mistreatment for returnees was higher for those who were suspected of committing serious crimes, including people smuggling or terrorism offences. The State party did not consider that the complainant was at risk of torture, cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment or degrading treatment or punishment if returned to Sri Lanka as there was no evidence to indicate that the complainant was suspected of committing any serious crimes. 4.21 The State party noted the complainant��s submissions that he was a failed asylum seeker and that he was fearful of being tortured if returned to Sri Lanka, taking into account the evidence of the human rights violations in the Batticaloa region where he was from in Sri Lanka. The State party acknowledged that article 3 (2) of the Convention requires all relevant considerations to be taken into account when determining whether article 3 (1) is engaged, including the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, it maintained that the existence of a general risk of violence does not constitute sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to that country; “additional grounds must exist to show the individual concerned would be personally at risk”.13 RRT specifically rejected the complainant’s claim that he would be at risk of significant harm if returned to Sri Lanka as a failed asylum seeker. The complainant had not established the existence of additional grounds to show that he was at a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture if returned to Sri Lanka. Furthermore, the issues raised by the complainant relating to the human rights violations in, and the return of asylum seekers to, Sri Lanka had been specifically and carefully considered by all domestic processes. Material that was before the decision makers and considered as part of the assessment of the complainant’s protection visa application, as well as during the appeals to RRT and the Federal Circuit Court, included country information provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Department of State of the United States of America, the Danish Immigration Service, the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, the United Kingdom Border Agency, the Asian Human Rights Commission, International Crisis Group, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Tamils Against Genocide, Freedom from Torture and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. That had been considered by the primary decision maker, RRT and during the ministerial intervention process. There had been no relevant change to the country information since those decisions were made. The State party therefore submitted that the complainant had not provided sufficient evidence to indicate that he would be personally at risk of torture, or that he would be subjected to treatment that would constitute torture under article 1 of the Convention. 4.22 On 31 March 2016, the State party reiterated its submission from 3 September 2015 and requested that the Committee lift its request for interim measures. If the Committee decided that the request should not be withdrawn after due consideration, the State party requested that the communication be fast-tracked for consideration by the Committee on the basis that it was not complex, the documentation was complete and all domestic processes had been finalized. 13 See G.R.B. v. Sweden, para. 6.3. 9