CAT/C/71/D/834/2017 not consult a doctor following his release on 16 December 2010. The complainant only sought medical assistance once he had arrived in the Netherlands, although he had had the opportunity to do so upon release. 4.11 The State party further refers to the complainant’s unhindered departure via Bandaranaike International Airport in Katunayaka, just outside Colombo, and finds this statement implausible. According to the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ country report on Sri Lanka dated June 2010, a major fixed checkpoint close to the entrance provided access to the international airport. The State party does not see how the complainant could have left Sri Lanka via this airport without experiencing problems and without having been recognized, given that he had driven to the airport three times a day on average since 1996 and had been released by means of a pay-off shortly before leaving the country, on 16 December 2010. It is implausible that the complainant would have taken such a risk, given that he had been arrested at the checkpoint at the same airport on 20 November 2010. Moreover, at that time, he would have still been walking with great difficulty as a result of the beatings he claims to have suffered not long before his departure, which would certainly have drawn attention to him. 4.12 Regarding the complainant’s claims that he had been in close contact with an infiltrated police officer of the Sri Lankan Criminal Investigation Department who was spying in Assen, the State party submits that that issue was duly considered during one of the asylum application processes. In that context, the State party submits that when denying the complainant’s asylum application, the Dutch authorities followed the Court request and took into account the information provided by the Dutch General Intelligence and Security Service in relation to its investigation into possible espionage by a purported inspector of the Sri Lankan Criminal Investigation Department. 4.13 Commenting on the complainant’s visit to the Embassy of Sri Lanka, the State party notes that the complainant provided inconsistent statements and changed them in order to build up his new asylum application. In this context, the State party finds it strange that he visited the Embassy and spoke to one of its employees about his asylum application although he feared for his relatives back home and for his life, were he to be returned. It is also significant that the complainant was informed in each asylum procedure that his application would be dealt with confidentially and that no information would be shared with his country of origin. The State party fails to see why he would break that confidentiality of his own volition, especially given his stated fear of the authorities. 4.14 The State party comments on the situation of the complainant’s family members and notes that the complainant has been unable to provide consistent information on the circumstances of the detention of his mother and wife by the Sri Lankan authorities. The State party also notes that there was a long delay between the complainant’s visit to the Embassy of Sri Lanka and the alleged persecution of his family. The complainant also failed to submit his mother’s death certificate and to provide any evidence whatsoever that her death was related to any mistreatment. 4.15 Regarding the complainant’s medical report, the State party notes that scars alone are insufficient, though they may serve to increase suspicion. At the same time, it cannot be concluded from the report that the scars are (or should be assumed to be) the result of beatings. Accordingly, the medical report cannot be given the significance the complainant wishes to attach to it. 4.16 The State party is convinced that the mere fact that the complainant is of Tamil origin from Sri Lanka is not in itself sufficient to assume that, if he were forcibly returned from the Netherlands, a country where LTTE fundraising takes place, without a national identity card and holding a temporary travel document, he would be at risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention.16 The State party notes in this regard that the Sri Lankan authorities are aware that many returnees have left Sri Lanka for economic reasons. 16 6 The reference is made to jurisprudence of European Court of Human Rights, N. and others v. United Kingdom, Application No. 16458/12, Decision, 15 April 2014, paras. 118–119.