CAT/C/61/D/659/2015 9.3 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 notes 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. Although, under the terms of its general comment No. 1, the Committee must give considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned, it is not bound by such findings and instead has the power, provided by article 22 (4) of the Convention, of free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case (para. 9). 9.4 In assessing the risk of torture in the present case, the Committee notes the complainant’s contention that there is a risk that he and his family would be tortured if returned to Sri Lanka owing to the fact that, in 1995, he was allegedly detained and tortured because he was suspected of links with LTTE; he worked with United Nations Department of Safety and Security for six years and owing to his professional responsibilities he had conflicts with government authorities and paramilitary groups; since 2008, he and his family had been subjected to harassment and attacks by unknown individuals on various occasions; and he feared that he and his family would be suspected of links with LTTE in the diaspora as failed asylum seekers from Canada. 9.5 However, the Committee also notes the State party’s observations that its domestic authorities found that many of the complainant’s statements concerning the threats against his family lacked credibility; the complainant has not demonstrated that his history of work with United Nations Department of Safety and Security put him at risk of torture; and the complainant and his family have not presented any evidence that they were involved in anti-Government or pro-LTTE activities that would put them at risk as failed asylum seekers. 9.6 The Committee particularly notes the State party’s argument that the information provided by the complainant, including police reports, does not demonstrate that the Sri Lankan authorities are not willing and do not have the ability to protect him and his family from harm. In that connection, the Committee notes that, in August 2009, when the complainant was threatened with death by an armed member of TMPV and a group of men, the police was responsive and dispersed the group of men. It also notes that, when the complainant received a threatening telephone call one year before, he filed a complaint with the police in Batticaloa, which could not, however, identify the caller. 9.7 The Committee further notes the State party’s submission that the complainant and his family have not demonstrated that the alleged incidents that occurred between 2008 and 2012 represent an ongoing risk for them if returned to Sri Lanka. In that connection, the Committee considers that the complainant has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish a link between the alleged threats to his married daughter and son-in-law who are still living in Sri Lanka, in 2014, and his previous work with United Nations Department of Safety and Security or his detention, in 1995. 9.8 Regarding the complainant’s general claim that he risks being subjected to torture upon return to Sri Lanka owing to his status as a Tamil with real or perceived links with the LTTE and as a failed asylum seeker returning from overseas, the Committee agrees that Sri Lankans of Tamil ethnicity with a real or perceived prior personal or familial connection to LTTE facing forcible return to Sri Lanka may face a risk of torture. In this connection, the Committee notes the current human rights situation in Sri Lanka and refers to its concluding observations on Sri Lanka’s fifth periodic report, in which it expressed concern, inter alia, about reports regarding the persistence of abductions, torture and ill-treatment perpetrated by State security forces in Sri Lanka, including the military and the police,25 which had continued in many parts of the country after the conflict with LTTE had ended in May 2009, and to credible reports by non-governmental organizations 26 concerning the 25 26 12 See CAT/C/LKA/CO/5, paras. 9-12. See, for example, Freedom from Torture, Tainted Peace: Torture in Sri Lanka since May 2009, August 2015, available at www.freedomfromtorture.org/sites/default/files/documents/sl_report_a4__final-f-b-web.pdf; and Yasmin Sooka, The Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales