CAT/C/58/D/595/2014 occurred “were reasonably open to it based on the evidence before it”. It also considered that the Tribunal had sufficiently dealt with the claim made in regard to the scarring on the complainant’s leg. Following the complainant’s submission to the Committee on 13 August 2015, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection assessed the evidence presented by the complainant (photographs and a signed statutory declaration) and determined that they provided no further evidence regarding the complainant’s claims that he had a profile within Sri Lanka that would attract the attention of the authorities or that his scars “would give rise to a profile, imputed or otherwise, on arrival in Sri Lanka”. The Department of Immigration and Border Protection assessed that there were no substantial grounds for believing that the complainant’s scars would put him at risk of torture. 6.2 In regard to the complainant’s reference to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in NA. v. the United Kingdom, the State party argued that that decision concerned the situation in 2008, before the end of the civil war in Sri Lanka, and that the levels of violence in 2008 could not be equated to the levels of violence in 2015. While there may have been a risk in 2008, the decision of the European Court of Human Rights did not constitute evidence supporting the complainant’s claim that the risk still existed after the war had ended and with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam no longer active in Sri Lanka. Recent events, such as a change in government leading to political reforms and to a reduced military presence in the north and east of the country, have provided increased security since the complainant’s claims were last considered. On the basis of current country information, the State party’s domestic processes have assessed that the complainant has not provided evidence that he would be identified as a sympathizer of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (including on account of his scarring) and has not provided evidence that even if he were identified as having family links with a member of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, or a suspected member, that he would have a sufficiently high profile to be in danger of being subjected to torture. 6.3 The State party also submitted that the up-to-date country information concurred with the conclusions reached by the Refugee Review Tribunal. In relation to the complainant’s illegal departure from Sri Lanka, under section 45 (1) (b) of the Immigrants and Emigrants Act it is an offence to depart other than via an official port of entry or exit and the penalties include custodial sentences of up to five years and a fine of up to 200,000 rupees. However on the basis of the current country information, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection had assessed that the most likely penalty was a fine and that custodial sentences were not given to passengers in people-smuggling ventures. The risk of torture was greater for those who were suspected of having committed serious crimes, including people smuggling and terrorism offences, or for high-profile former members of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. The State party argued that the complainant did not have those characteristics. Complainant’s further comments 7. On 5 August 2016, the complainant reiterated that he disagreed with the State party’s statement that his claims for protection had been subjected to “robust and comprehensive domestic administrative and judicial processes”, since there were inconsistencies in the Refugee Review Tribunal decision, and the Tribunal had paid scant attention to the State party’s non-refoulement obligations under the Convention as it had addressed his claims in one paragraph only. He reiterates that being seen with a scar on arrival at the airport would in and of itself provoke sufficient suspicion to place him at risk of an extended period of detention on remand at Negombo Prison. It would also place him at a significant risk of ongoing harassment on his return to his home village, because the Sri Lankan authorities would be concerned that the scar had been acquired in battle and would perceive him as a combatant or would suspect that the scar had been acquired as part of the alleged shelling of civilian populations at the end of the war. He maintains that civilians 6