CAT/C/22/D/106/1998 page 10 a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute sufficient grounds for determining whether the particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his return to that country; additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. Similarly, the absence of a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights does not mean that a person cannot be considered to be in danger of being subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances. 6.5 The Committee is aware of the serious situation of human rights in Sri Lanka and notes with concern the reports of torture in the country, in particular during pre-trial detention. It is also aware of the fact that Tamils are at particular risk of being detained following controls at checkpoints or search operations. 6.6 Although the Committee considers that complete accuracy is seldom to be expected from victims of torture, it notes the important inconsistencies in the author's statements before the Australian authorities. It further notes that the author has not provided the Committee with any arguments, including medical evidence, which could have explained such inconsistencies. Accordingly, the Committee is not persuaded that the author faces a personal and substantial risk of being tortured upon his return to Sri Lanka. 7. In the circumstances the Committee, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, is of the view that the decision of the State party to return the author to Sri Lanka would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. Notes 1.In the author's communication the incident in question was said to have taken place in 1982. 2.No medical evidence submitted. 3.Communication No. 18/1994, X v. Switzerland; Communication No. 17/1994, X v. Switzerland; Communication No. 31/1995, X and Y v. the Netherlands. 4.General comment by the Committee against Torture on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22 of the Convention against Torture dated 23 November 1997 (A/53/44, annex IX). 5.Communication No. 41/1996, Kisoki v. Sweden, 8 May 1996, para. 9.3; Communication No. 43/1996, Tala v. Sweden, 15 November 1996, para. 10.3. 6.The State party notes that there was no interpreter present at the interview with the author on his arrival at Melbourne airport. However, in relation to the potential for misunderstanding, the State party also notes the following comment by the RRT: “[The author] appears to have been able to understand and respose (sic) to a range of other questions to which he supplied detailed factual