CAT/C/61/D/659/2015 Lankan authorities as having been involved in anti-Government activity or in pro-LTTE activities. The complainant and his family have presented no evidence that they were engaged in such activities or that they may be perceived as having done so. Moreover, the complainant has not established that his history of employment with United Nations Department of Safety and Security puts him at risk of torture or persecution. Objective reports on the human rights situation in Sri Lanka do not support the complainant’s position that United Nations employees face a risk of harm at the hands of Sri Lankan authorities. Although some human rights reports suggest that activists and humanitarian workers face a greater risk of persecution than the general population, United Nations employees do not fall within this risk profile. 4.3 The complainant’s narrative reveals that Sri Lankan authorities have shown willingness and the ability to protect his family from harm. The complainant recounts that in 2009, when TMVP members harassed him in front of his house, the authorities responded to his call and were successful in dispersing the TMVP members. In addition, he annexed to his complaint numerous police reports. The existence of those reports demonstrates that the police in Batticaloa took the complainant’s allegations of threats and harassment seriously. 4.4 In the alternative, the State party submits that, even if the complainant and his family’s claims amount to persecution or torture, he has not discharged the burden of showing that the risk is ongoing. In the State party’s view, the incidents that occurred between 2008 and 2012 do not provide a credible basis upon which the Committee could conclude that the complainant and his family would continue to face a risk of torture if returned to Sri Lanka today. The complainant has submitted some evidence that postdates the family’s departure from Sri Lanka. The complainant alleges that his daughter and sonin-law, who have remained in Sri Lanka, have been receiving threatening phone calls, in which the caller demands that the complainant return to Sri Lanka. He also alleges that an intruder entered their yard in September 2014. Finally, the author’s son-in-law was involved in a road accident, which he claims was caused intentionally by two men on motorcycles. According to a medical report, he suffered a back injury. The State party submits that, even if taken at face value, those incidents are not sufficient to demonstrate an ongoing risk to the complainant and his family. On the contrary, the complainant’s submissions make it clear that his daughter and son-in-law have remained in Batticaloa in relative safety for over two years. The above-mentioned incidents demonstrate that, at most, the complainant and his family might continue to be subjected to harassment if returned to Sri Lanka. The State party also submits that the complainant has not alleged that his presumed detention without charge for 10 months in 1995 and 1996 was related to the family’s ongoing fear of persecution. In fact, he states that the man who was responsible for his detention also became an employee of the United Nations. 4.5 In support of its argument that the complaint should be declared inadmissible under rule 113 (b) as manifestly unfounded, the State party also submits that it would be inappropriate for the Committee to re-evaluate the conclusions reached by domestic decision makers with respect to the complainant’s claim for protection for himself and his family. It submits that it is not the role of the Committee to weigh evidence or reassess findings of fact made by domestic courts, tribunals or decision makers. 4.6 In the event that aspects of the complaint are considered admissible, the State party submits, in the alternative, that it is entirely without merit. In that context, it acknowledges that, generally speaking, serious human rights violations continue in Sri Lanka.11 However, despite the human rights issues affecting Tamils generally, not all Tamils face a risk of torture. Indeed, objective reports, including the ones provided by the complainant, confirm that only individuals bearing certain personal characteristics are subject to such a risk. Some failed refugee claimants may bear these personal characteristics, but the complainant and his family do not. The State party also acknowledges reports that some failed refugee 11 Reference is made to, inter alia, UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from Sri Lanka, 21 December 2012, p. 5; and United States of America, Department of State, 2013 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices — Sri Lanka, 27 February 2014, p. 2. 5