CAT/C/71/D/896/2018 which had continued in many parts of the country after the conflict with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam ended in May 2009. It also refers to credible reports by non-governmental organizations13 concerning the treatment by the Sri Lankan authorities of individuals returned to Sri Lanka. However, the Committee recalls that the occurrence of human rights violations in one’s country of origin is not sufficient in itself to conclude that a complainant runs a real and personal risk of torture.14 7.8 In the present communication, the Committee observes that the complainant had the opportunity to provide additional details and supporting evidence of his claims to the domestic authorities in four sets of proceedings and that the authorities considered the complainant’s oral statements in the absence of documentation establishing his nationality, identity or travel route. The Committee notes the inconsistencies and gaps in the complainant’s oral statements, which led the domestic authorities to conclude that he had not demonstrated that he would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture if returned to Sri Lanka. In that respect, the Committee considers that the domestic authorities were relying heavily on the complainant’s negative credibility assessment, even though some inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements could be considered minor, others may have originated in translation errors or have been reasonably explained. Furthermore, as indicated in the minutes of the complainant’s hearing, the complainant provided additional information with respect to the circumstances of his detention. The Committee observes the State party’s allegation that several of the complainant’s assertions, namely, that he had never trained with a weapon in the training camp, that he had never participated in the armed conflict and that he had not been approached by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam earlier than 2008, are not consistent with the general country information on Sri Lanka. The Committee notes, however, that the mere fact that the general country information may undermine some assertions made by the complainant should not necessarily call into question the veracity of the complainant’s account in its entirety. The Committee recalls that complete accuracy is seldom to be expected from victims of torture 15 and observes that the complainant has provided documentation indicating that he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and depression at the time of his interviews. 7.9 The Committee recalls that ill-treatment suffered in the past is only one element to be taken into account, the relevant question before the Committee being whether the complainant currently runs a risk of torture if returned to Sri Lanka. 16 The Committee considers that, even if it were to disregard the alleged inconsistencies in the complainant’s account of his past experiences in Sri Lanka and accept his statements as true, the complainant has not provided any information credibly indicating that he would currently be of interest to the authorities of Sri Lanka. In that regard, the Committee observes that, even though Sri Lankans of Tamil ethnicity with a prior personal or familial connection to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam facing forcible return to Sri Lanka may be at risk of torture, in the present case,17 according to the complainant’s own narrative, he never participated in the armed conflict, and while in detention, he consistently denied his involvement with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. The Committee also observes that the documents submitted to prove the authorities’ interest in the complainant date back to 2011, and they were not found to have been issued by the competent authorities. Despite the opportunity to challenge that expert opinion, the complainant did not take steps to prove otherwise. Furthermore, taking into account the report issued by the Institute for Human Rights and Medical Assessment, which indicated that the complainant’s scars were consistent with his account, it is to be noted that the findings do not discount other possible causes for the complainant’s injuries. In addition, the fact that the complainant was able to leave Sri Lanka without any incident also shows the lack of interest of the State authorities in his whereabouts, especially because he could not establish that he had left the country illegally. In fact, the 13 14 15 16 17 See Freedom from Torture, “Tainted peace: torture in Sri Lanka since May 2009”, August 2015. See, for example, Thirugnanasampanthar v. Australia (CAT/C/61/D/614/2014), para. 8.7. See the Committee’s general comment No. 4 (2017), para. 42. See also Alan v. Switzerland (CAT/C/16/D/21/1995), para. 11.3; and G.E. v. Australia (CAT/C/61/D/725/2016), para. 7.6. See, for example, S.S.B. v. Denmark (CAT/C/60/D/602/2014), para 8.7; and Thirugnanasampanthar v. Australia, para. 8.7. J.N. v. Denmark (CAT/C/57/D/628/2014), para. 7.9. 9