CAT/C/71/D/896/2018 complainant’s allegation that he managed to flee the country with a fake passport has not been found plausible by the Dutch authorities, because he failed to provide any identity or travel documents and was unable to provide any details about his travel route. The Committee takes note of the documents attesting to the complainant’s claim that eight unidentified men went to his parents’ house to inquire about his whereabouts in December 2014. The documents were not given probative value by the domestic authorities, however, because they were drawn up at the request of the complainant’s mother. As for the complainant’s participation in the activities organized by Tamil groups in the Netherlands, the Committee notes that, even if the Sri Lankan authorities would be able to identify him from pictures in social media, those events do not in and of themselves make the complainant a significant supporter of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. The complainant’s assertions that he had worked with persons identified as terrorists by the Government of Sri Lanka, do not change that assessment, given that nothing has been submitted to corroborate them. The information made available to the Committee does not indicate that, 10 years after the alleged events occurred, the complainant would be at risk of being subjected to torture if returned to his country of origin. The Committee therefore considers that the complainant has failed to adduce sufficient evidence and to adequately substantiate his contention that the alleged past events would be of interest to 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 deportation to Sri Lanka would expose him to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention.18 8. The Committee therefore concludes that the complainant has not adduced sufficient grounds to enable it to believe that he would run a real, foreseeable, personal and present risk of being subjected to torture upon his return to Sri Lanka. 9. 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 violation of article 3 of the Convention. 18 10 See, for example, V.M. v. Australia (CAT/C/67/D/723/2015), para. 7.8; Ranawaka v. Australia (CAT/C/68/D/855/2017), paras. 9.7–9.8; S.P. v. Australia (CAT/C/68/D/718/2015), para. 7.7; and; I.P.W.F. v. Australia (CAT/C/63/D/618/2014), para. 8.7.