CAT/C/61/D/659/2015 treatment of returned individuals by the Sri Lankan authorities.27 However, the Committee recalls that the occurrence of human rights violations in one’s country of origin is not sufficient in itself to conclude that an individual runs a personal risk of torture. 28 The Committee also recalls that, although past events may be of relevance, the principal question before the Committee is whether the complainant currently runs a risk of torture if returned to Sri Lanka.29 The Committee notes that, in its assessment of the complainant’s asylum application, the State party’s authorities considered the possible risk of ill-treatment of failed asylum seekers upon return to Sri Lanka and is of the view that, in the present case, the State party’s authorities gave appropriate consideration to the complainant’s claims. 9.9 In the light of those considerations, read as a whole, the Committee concludes that the complainant and his family have not adduced sufficient evidence for it to conclude that they run a real, foreseeable, personal and present risk of being subjected to torture upon return to Sri Lanka. Furthermore, the complainant has not demonstrated that the State party’s authorities failed to conduct a proper investigation into the submitted allegations. The Committee thus considers that the material on the file does not enable it to conclude that the return of the complainant and his family would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 10. Consequently, the Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the complainant and his family’s removal to Sri Lanka by the State party would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 27 28 29 (BHRC) and The International Truth and Justice Project, Sri Lanka, An Unfinished War: Torture and Sexual Violence in Sri Lanka 2009-2014, March 2014, available at www.barhumanrights.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2014/03/an_unfinihsed_war._torture_and_sexual_violence_in_sri_lanka_20092014_0-compressed.pdf. See communication No. 628/2014, J.N. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 13 May 2016, para. 7.9. See, for example, communication No. 426/2010, R.D. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 8 November 2013, para. 9.2. See, for example, communications No. 61/1996, X, Y and Z v. Sweden, decision adopted on 6 May 1998, para. 11.2; No. 435/2010, G.B.M. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 14 November 2012, para. 7.7; and No. 458/2011, X. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 28 November 2014, para. 9.5. 13