CAT/C/71/D/834/2017
The Committee also refers to the State party’s observations that the authorities have
thoroughly evaluated all the evidence presented by the complainant, including the medical
reports, and in this context, it notes the State party’s arguments that it cannot be conclusive
that the complainant’s scars were caused by beatings.
7.9
Regarding the complainant’s exposure in the Netherlands to a police officer of the Sri
Lankan Criminal Investigation Department, the Committee notes that the competent State
party authorities looked into possible risks and decided that his return to Sri Lanka would not
be contrary to article 3 of the Convention. Regarding his attendance at an LTTE event, the
Committee notes the State party’s arguments that the complainant did not plausibly
demonstrate that the Sri Lankan authorities were aware of this, but even if they were, those
activities would be too marginal to conclude that he is an activist. The Committee also notes
that difficulties faced by the complainant’s relatives back in Sri Lanka were not plausibly
demonstrated.
7.10 The State party submits that, in the course of four asylum procedures that lasted for
six years, the complainant provided conflicting statements without having satisfactorily
demonstrated that the Sri Lankan authorities have ever taken any interest in him, and that the
risk factors mentioned by him did not lead to a conclusion that he would face a real risk of
torture upon returning to Sri Lanka.
7.11 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which the risk of torture must
be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory, and it reiterates that it is generally for
the complainant to present an arguable case. On the basis of all the information contained on
file, including on the general situation of human rights in Sri Lanka, the Committee considers
that the complainant has not provided sufficient evidence to enable it to conclude that his
return to Sri Lanka would expose him to a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture within
the meaning of article 3 of the Convention.
8.
The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the
complainant’s removal to Sri Lanka by the State party would not constitute a violation of
article 3 of the Convention.
9