CAT/C/58/D/609/2014 Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 8.2 In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the return of the complainant to Sri Lanka would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return (“refouler”) a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 8.3 The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to Sri Lanka. In assessing that risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3 (2) of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. 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. Conversely, the absence of a consistent pattern of flagrant violations of human rights does not mean that a person might not be subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances.5 8.4 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.6 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). 7 8.5 The Committee notes the complainant’s claims that he will be detained and tortured if returned to Sri Lanka as a failed asylum seek er and owing to his and his relatives’ association with LTTE. The Committee also notes the State party’s submission that the complainant failed to establish a prima facie case for the purposes of admissibility, he did not provide credible evidence and he failed 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. The State party also submitted that the complainant’s claims were thoroughly reviewed by the competent domestic authorities and courts, in accordance with domestic legislation, and that the current human rights situation in Sri Lanka was taken into account. 5 6 7 See communication No. 550/2013, S.K. and others v. Sweden, decision adopted on 8 May 2015, para. 7.3. See communication No. 203/2002, A.R. v. Netherlands, decision adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 7.3. See communication No. 356/2008, N.S. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 6 May 2010, para. 7.3. 7