CAT/C/61/D/720/2015 information. The State party refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence and recalls that the existence of a general risk of violence does not constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to a country; additional grounds must exist to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. 23 It maintains that the complainant has not established the existence of additional grounds to show that he is at a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture if returned to Sri Lanka. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 16 November 2016, the complainant’s representative submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. He highlights the fact that the State party acknowledges that the representative of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection recognized that the complainant’s detention in 2009 was persecutory, yet argues that, at the time of the decision, the cause of the persecution no longer existed. According to the complainant, it follows from that persecution that he had good cause to flee Sri Lanka and seek asylum. He disputes the State party’s argument that he does not have a profile of significance and that the cessation of open hostilities in May 2009 between the Government of Sri Lanka and LTTE means that there is no danger. 5.2 The complainant submits that the State party’s authorities accepts that he was beaten after the bomb blast in 2009 and that he was detained and beaten because of the bomb blast, yet it failed to accept that the detention and beating occurred because he was suspected of being involved in the bomb blast, more specifically, that he was suspected of being actively engaged in violent LTTE actions. He argues that, while he, himself, did not have any links to LTTE, in the minds of the security forces, he was linked to LTTE in 2009. He claims that there is a real danger that the authorities in Sri Lanka continue to suspect him of links to LTTE and he will become a target of torture during interrogation as a result. The complainant submits that the fact that he was tortured in the past is a good indicator that he will be tortured in the future. 5.3 The complainant argues that the reasoning of the representative of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, based on the country information, that people were leaving Sri Lanka for economic reasons and because of persecution, cannot be applied to in his case to dismiss the concrete personal claims being made, especially since there were no significant credibility findings against him. 24 The findings affirm that the complainant was persecuted and subsequently fled Sri Lanka. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the general country information to the contrary no longer applies to his case. The same goes for the argument about the massive returns to Sri Lanka. His case should be assessed on its own merits and not compared to cases that do not share the same characteristics. 5.4 The complainant claims that, while the representative of the Minister acknowledged that he had suffered persecution, it was concluded that the original reasons for the persecution no longer existed, therefore the complainant would no longer be persecuted for those reasons on his return. He argues that the decision of the State party’s authorities’ attempts to exclude him from any other persecutory profile, but at no point does it attempt to consider whether, as a result of past persecution, there is an existing profile that would place him in real danger of torture or inhuman treatment. He states that the assessment of the non-refoulement obligations was “little more than ticking a few legal boxes: there was no substantive consideration of the obligations”. 5.5 Furthermore, the complainant challenges the reasoning of the Refugee Review Tribunal, which accepted that he had been detained and beaten but did not find it credible that he could not explain how the beating may have affected his memory. He claims that the Tribunal’s credibility findings against him are unreasonable because if it accepted that he had been beaten, it should understand that it is likely that he would have some symptoms of 23 24 See communication No. 83/1997, G.R.B v. Sweden, Views adopted on 15 May 1998, para. 6.3. The complainant quotes the representative of the Minister: “I found no reason to doubt the credibility of the applicant. His information remained consistent through his entry and PV interviews and I have proceeded on the basis that he is generally credible.” 9