CAT/C/71/D/896/2018 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; (d) sentence in absentia; and (e) previous torture (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). 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). 7.5 In assessing the risk of torture in the present case, the Committee takes note of the complainant’s claim that he would face a risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention by the Sri Lanka Army if he were returned to Sri Lanka, because of his Tamil ethnicity and presumed affiliation with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. In that regard, the Committee also takes note of the complainant’s assertion that he worked as a welder in a garage owned by members of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and that, for several months, he was forced to attend a military training in a camp operated by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. The Committee further takes note of his contention that he was confined in detention camps by the Sri Lanka Army, where he was interrogated multiple times about his possible involvement with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, and that he was tortured on several occasions during the interrogations. The Committee takes note of his contention that he escaped from the camp and managed to leave Sri Lanka, after his uncle arranged for his release by paying a bribe. The Committee is mindful of the documents brought before it, including a warrant for the complainant’s arrest and a medical report issued by the Institute for Human Rights and Medical Assessment. The Committee takes note of the complainant’s statement that he had the emblem of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam tattooed on his right upper arm. The Committee notes that he is a member of the Tamil Youth Organization in the Netherlands and the Dutch Tamil Forum and that he was part of various events organized by Tamil groups in the Netherlands, including in cooperation with persons listed as terrorists in the Gazette of Sri Lanka. 7.6 The Committee observes that the State party authorities considered that the complainant’s narrative was not credible, because he had provided inconsistent and vague statements concerning essential elements of his account. The Committee takes note of the State party’s observation that, during asylum proceedings, the complainant, who was represented by legal counsel, was examined and found to be medically fit to be interviewed. It was only in the context of the fourth set of proceedings that the complainant indicated that his medical condition, namely, the progression of chronic post-traumatic stress disorder, might have interfered with his ability to provide complete and coherent accounts of his case. The Committee takes note of the State party’s position that the report issued by the Institute for Human Rights and Medical Assessment does not prove that the complainant was subjected to torture, because the scars it describes could have had other causes. The Committee also takes note of the State party’s statement that the arrest warrant and additional documents adduced by the complainant were found not to have been issued by the competent authorities, due to irregularities detected in their format, and that the complainant failed to challenge that assessment, even though he had the opportunity to do so. The Committee observes the State party’s position that there is no indication that the complainant has been sought by, or attracted the adverse attention of, the Sri Lankan authorities and that his current activities are too marginal to be of interest to the authorities. 7.7 The Committee notes the current human rights situation in Sri Lanka and refers to its concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of Sri Lanka, in which it expressed concern, inter alia, about reports on the persistence of abductions, torture and ill-treatment perpetrated by State security forces in Sri Lanka, including the military and the police, 12 12 8 CAT/C/LKA/CO/5, paras. 9–12. See also Human Rights Council resolution 46/1, on promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka.