CAT/C/61/D/720/2015 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.31 9.3 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 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. Although, under the terms of its general comment No. 1, the Committee gives considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned,32 it is not bound by such findings and instead has the power, provided by article 22 (4) of the Convention, to freely assess the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case. 9.4 The Committee notes the State party’s observation that its domestic authorities found the complainant to be generally credible. It also notes that the State party’s authorities accepted many of the complainant’s claims, notably that he had been ill-treated in the past, yet did not assess that that could create a risk for him at the present time, as he has no links with LTTE. The Committee observes that the complainant left Sri Lanka legally on two occasions and did not suffered any ill-treatment upon exiting or upon returning in 2009. As regards allegations about conditions in Negombo Remand Prison, the Committee observes that, as the complainant departed Sri Lanka legally, it is unlikely that he would be detained upon return or remanded in custody or significantly harmed in prison. 9.5 The Committee takes note of the complainant’s disagreement with the reasoning and the outcome of the domestic processes. It observes, however, that the complainant has not demonstrated any irregularity in the domestic processes. In the absence of any pertinent information or documentation on file, there is no evidence that would lead to the conclusion that the domestic decision maker was biased against the complainant. 9.6 Regarding the complainant’s general claim that he risks being subjected to torture upon return to Sri Lanka owing to his status as a Tamil with real or perceived links to LTTE and as a failed asylum seeker returning from overseas, the Committee agrees that Sri Lankans of Tamil ethnicity with a real or perceived prior personal or familial connection to LTTE and who are facing forcible return to Sri Lanka may face a risk of torture. In that connection, 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 about, inter alia, reports regarding the persistence of abductions, torture and ill-treatment perpetrated by State security forces in Sri Lanka, including the military and the police,33 which had continued in many parts of the country after the conflict with LTTE had ended in May 2009, and to credible reports by non-governmental organizations34 concerning the treatment of returned individuals by the Sri Lankan authorities. 35 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 an individual runs a personal risk of 31 32 33 34 35 See communications No. 282/2005, S.P.A. v. Canada, decision adopted on 7 November 2006; No 333/2007, T.I. v. Canada, decision adopted on 15 November 2010; and No 344/2008, A.M.A. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 12 November 2010. See, for example, communication No. 356/2008, N.S. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 6 May 2010, para.7.3. See CAT/C/LKA/CO/5, paras. 9-12. Freedom from Torture, Tainted Peace: Torture in Sri Lanka since May 2009, August 2015, available at www.freedomfromtorture.org/sites/default/files/documents/sl_report_a4_-_final-f-b-web.pdf; and Yasmin Sooka, The Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales (BHRC) and The International Truth and Justice Project, Sri Lanka, An Unfinished War, Torture and Sexual Violence in Sri Lanka 2009-2014, March 2014, available at www.barhumanrights.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2014/03/an_unfinihsed_war._torture_and_sexual_violence_in_sri_lanka_20092014_0-compressed.pdf. See communication No. 628/2014, J.N. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 13 May 2016, para. 7.9. 13