CAT/C/67/D/723/2015 foreseeable, present, personal and real (ibid., para. 38). 8 The Committee also recalls that it gives considerable weight to findings of fact made by organs of the State party concerned, however it is not bound by such findings, as it can make a free assessment of the information available to it in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, taking into account all the circumstances relevant to each case (para. 50). 7.4 In assessing the risk of torture in the present case, the Committee notes the complainant’s claim that he would face a risk of torture by the Sri Lanka Army and Navy if he were returned to Sri Lanka because he was a witness to an incident evidencing that the Sri Lanka Navy was involved in grease man activities. The Committee also notes his allegation that he witnessed war crimes committed by the Sri Lanka Army and that he would be intimidated or even killed by the Sri Lanka Army to prevent him from offering his testimony in the course of any investigative mechanism. In that respect, the Committee further notes the complainant’s explanation that he did not raise this claim before the domestic authorities, as he could not foresee at the time that witnessing these events could have such serious implications for him personally. The Committee takes note of the complainant’s assertion that he was detained and assaulted by the security forces of Sri Lanka every time he went fishing between 2001 and 2012. The Committee also notes the complainant’s complaint that he is at risk of harm because of his illegal departure from Sri Lanka and his profile as a failed asylum seeker. The Committee is mindful of the references made to the changes to the Migration Act, which, according to the complainant, illustrate an alarming trend to weaken the State party’s non-refoulement obligations. The Committee further notes the complainant’s contention that his claims have not been properly assessed by the domestic authorities because, in spite of the consideration given at numerous court instances, his accounts of the facts could not be reassessed at the higher instances, and because minor discrepancies in his statements were weighed against his credibility. 7.5 The Committee notes the State party’s submission that the complainant’s allegations have been thoroughly considered under the domestic decision-making processes and have all been found to be non-credible, and that they therefore could not engage the State party’s non-refoulement obligations under the Convention. The Committee also takes note of the State party’s submission that the domestic authorities accepted that the complainant was questioned by the Sri Lanka Army, along with other Tamil fishermen, and was physically assaulted during an incident in Mullaitivu in 2005. However, given that the complainant could not be perceived as having any links to the Tamil Tigers and that there have been inconsistencies in his accounts of the grease man incident, which were not accepted as facts, the domestic authorities did not consider that he remained of any ongoing interest to the authorities of Sri Lanka. The Committee further notes the State party’s submission that the authorities, considering the available country information, could not satisfy themselves that ethnic Tamils were subject to a real chance of persecution by the authorities of Sri Lanka on account of their ethnicity alone, or that the complainant was subject to a real chance of persecution because of his status as a failed asylum seeker. The Committee notes the State party’s submission, regarding the complainant’s claim of witnessing war crimes, that such claim was not raised before the domestic authorities. In any event, it is implausible that the complainant resided in Sri Lanka for another three years after witnessing that incident without being identified or targeted by the Sri Lanka Army and that he would not have raised this claim upon his arrival in Australia. Furthermore, there is minimal information or evidence supporting the complainant’s claim. As concerns the newly submitted letter by the complainant, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that, if officers of the State Intelligence Service had visited the complainant’s house in Sri Lanka as he claims – and particularly if these visits occurred as frequently as his wife details in the letter – it is implausible that he would not have provided supporting evidence in that regard at the time of, or soon after, his arrival in Australia. Regarding the complainant’s submission concerning changes to the Migration Act, the Committee notes the State party’s statement that the complainant does not assert or show how he is personally affected by the impugned provisions. 8 8 T.Z. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/62/D/688/2015), para. 8.4.