CAT/C/51/D/387/2009 merely indicate that the complainant might be at a generalized risk of harm if he was returned to Sri Lanka, because of the current political and social climate, but does not indicate any personal and present danger of encountering harm by Sri Lankan authorities. 6.4 The complainant asserts that he would not be able to relocate within Sri Lanka and substantiates this claim with a conclusion drawn in a United Kingdom Home Office operational guidance note to the effect that applicants perceived to be active or influential in opposition to the Sri Lankan Government may be at risk of persecution by the State. However, this conclusion largely concerns journalists, lawyers, human rights activists and supporters of the current political opposition — a coalition led by General Sarath Foneska —, which has a different composition to the UNP that the complainant supported when he was in Sri Lanka. Finally, there is little evidence to suggest that the complainant would be at risk of torture by the Sri Lankan authorities if he were to return to Matale District (where the complainant lived and which is in the south-central part of the country). The main areas of unrest in Sri Lanka are in the north and east, where the civil conflict with the LTTE took place. 6.5 With regard to the psychological reports submitted to the Committee, they only establish that the complainant experienced some kind of trauma in the past (which the State party submits was not the result of torture by the Sri Lankan Government). No new evidence has been provided to suggest that he is presently at risk of torture by the Sri Lankan Government if he were to return to Sri Lanka. The psychological report dated 1 April 2011 notes that the complainant’s current mental health issues are predominantly linked to his current predicament (i.e., his community detention) and the uncertainty surrounding his appeal for a protection visa. While the report notes that he experiences recollections of his alleged incarceration by the LTTE, there is no new evidence linking the complainant’s mental health to torture carried out by Sri Lankan government authorities. While the State party acknowledges that the complainant has a history of mental illness in connection with his ongoing detention, his difficulties in articulating his experiences in Sri Lanka and the subsequent psychological evidence provided do not have a material impact on the merits of his claims that he is at a real and personal risk of torture if he is returned to Sri Lanka. 6.6 While the medical reports establish that the complainant has scars on his body, they do not provide conclusive proof that they were caused by groups opposed to the UNP, that these groups were affiliated with or agents of the Sri Lankan Government or that the complainant is in personal and present danger of experiencing torture if returned to Sri Lanka. 6.7 Notwithstanding its position in relation to the admissibility of the complainant’s claim of torture by the LTTE, the State party considers that the complainant’s comments do not provide any new evidence to suggest a continuing real, personal and present risk of torture by the LTTE since he arrived in Australia, and accordingly, his allegations are unmeritorious. Complainant’s further information 7.1 On 21 March 2012, the complainant submitted additional documents to the Committee, including newspaper articles stating that Mr. L.A., the government official who had allegedly threatened the complainant at gunpoint, had surrendered to the police in August 2010, after allegedly abducting and assaulting three people. Another article dated 28 March 2011 states that after that incident, Mr. L.A. was re-elected to his position as Chairman of Yatawatta Pradeshiya Sbha in Matale District. The last article dated 1 February 2011 indicates that Mr. L.A. stood as a United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) candidate in the March 2011 local government elections. The complainant 12