CAT/C/60/D/623/2014 May 2009.8 However, the Committee recalls that the aim of the evaluation is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would be returned. It follows that the existence of a pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute sufficient reason for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture on return to that country; additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. 10.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention, according to which the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. While the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable (para. 6), the Committee recalls that the burden of proof generally falls on the complainant, who must present an arguable case that he or she faces a foreseeable, real and personal risk. 9 The Committee also recalls that although under the terms of its general comment No. 1, the Committee is free to assess the facts on the basis of the full set of circumstances in every case, considerable weight is given to the findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned (para. 9).10 10.5 In the present case, the complainant claims that he will be detained and tortured if returned to Sri Lanka. The Committee takes note of the State party’s submissions that the complainant has failed to provide credible evidence and to substantiate that there was a foreseeable, real and personal risk that he would be subjected to torture by the authorities if returned to Sri Lanka; and that his claims have been thoroughly reviewed by the competent domestic authorities and courts, in accordance with domestic legislation and taking into account the current human rights situation in Sri Lanka. 10.6 The Committee refers to its consideration of the fifth periodic report of Sri Lanka, 11 during which it voiced serious concerns about reports suggesting that abductions, torture and ill-treatment perpetrated by State security forces in Sri Lanka, including the police, had continued in many parts of the country after the conflict with LTTE had ended in May 2009. 12 The Committee has also expressed concern at the reprisals against victims and witnesses of acts of torture and at the acts of abduction and torture in unacknowledged detention facilities, and inquired whether a prompt, impartial and effective investigation of any such acts has been undertaken.13 10.7 In the present communication, the Committee notes the complainant’s claims that he was registered with LTTE, received military training and participated in a fight against the Sri Lankan army, after which he escaped and soon after left the country; that he participated in sports activities organized by LTTE in the Netherlands, pictures of which were posted on Facebook; and that his cousin was killed in 2006 because of his alleged affiliation with LTTE. The Committee also notes the claims that the complainant is a young Tamil male from the north of Sri Lanka, a failed asylum seeker with visible scars who would be forcibly returned to Sri Lanka on an emergency passport. At the same time, the Committee notes that there is nothing in the communication to indicate that the complainant or members of his family played any significant role in LTTE or had problems with the Sri Lankan authorities at any point in time. Moreover, the complainant has escaped from LTTE and has not participated in any political protests organized by LTTE abroad. He claims to have received a summons by a commanding officer in the army in 2012 and that the authorities were asking about him; however, the Committee notes that since 2012, the complainant has not reported any follow-up by the army on his failure to report to the camp or any subsequent inquiries about him. 8 9 10 11 12 13 See CAT/C/LKA/CO/3-4, para. 6. See also communication No. 203/2002, A.R. v. Netherlands, decision adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 7.3. See, for example, communication No. 356/2008, N.S. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 6 May 2010, para. 7.3. See CAT/C/SR.1472 and 1475. See CAT/C/LKA/CO/3-4, para. 6. See CAT/C/SR.1472, paras. 36 and 42 and CAT/C/SR.1475, paras. 10 and 27. 7