CAT/C/67/D/723/2015 Lanka.13 In that respect, the Committee is mindful of the length of time (at least seven years) that has elapsed since the alleged incidents concerned. The Committee therefore considers that the complainant has failed to adduce sufficient evidence and to adequately substantiate his contention that the alleged past events would attract the real interest of the authorities of Sri Lanka. Having also considered the general situation of human rights in Sri Lanka, the Committee is of the view that the complainant has failed to substantiate his claims that his extradition to Sri Lanka would expose him to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention. 8. The Committee therefore concludes that the complainant has not adduced sufficient grounds to enable it to believe that he would run a real, foreseeable, personal and present risk of being subjected to torture upon his return to Sri Lanka. 9. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the complainant’s removal to Sri Lanka by the State party would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 13 10 See, for example, X, Y and Z v. Sweden (CAT/C/20/D/61/1996), para. 11.2; G.B.M. v. Sweden (CAT/C/49/D/435/2010), para. 7.7; and X v. Denmark (CAT/C/53/D/458/2011), para. 9.5.