CAT/C/71/D/834/2017 ended in May 2009.17 However, the Committee recalls that the aim of such determination is to establish whether the individual concerned would personally be at a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would be returned. It follows that the existence of a pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute sufficient reason for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture on return to that country; additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. 7.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 4 (2017), according to which the nonrefoulement obligation exists whenever there are “substantial grounds” for believing that the person concerned would be in danger of being subjected to torture in a State to which he or she is facing deportation, either as an individual or as a member of a group that may be at risk of being tortured in the State of destination. The Committee recalls that “substantial grounds” exist whenever the risk of torture is “foreseeable, personal, present and real” (para. 11). Indications of personal risk may include, but are not limited to: (a) the complainant’s ethnic background; (b) political affiliation or political activities of the complainant and/or the complainant’s family members; (c) previous torture; (d) incommunicado detention or other form of arbitrary and illegal detention in the country of origin; and (e) clandestine escape from the country of origin because of threats of torture (para. 45). 7.5 The Committee also recalls that the burden of proof is on the author of the complaint, who must present an arguable case, namely that he or she must submit arguments showing that the danger of being subjected to torture is foreseeable, present, personal and real. However, when the complainant is in a situation where he or she cannot elaborate on his or her case, for instance, when the complainant has demonstrated that he or she has no possibility of obtaining documentation relating to his or her allegation of torture, or is deprived of his or her liberty, the burden of proof is reversed, and it is up to the State party concerned to investigate the allegations and verify the information on which the complaint is based.18 The Committee further recalls that it gives considerable weight to findings of fact made by organs of the State party concerned; however, it is not bound by such findings and will make a free assessment of the information available to it in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, taking into account all the circumstances relevant to each case. 19 7.6 In the present case, the complainant claims that he will be detained and tortured in Sri Lanka because: he is a young Tamil; he has visible scars and injuries; he left Sri Lanka illegally and would return with no national identity card from a country where funds were raised for LTTE; he has previously been detained on suspicion of having ties with LTTE; he has applied for asylum in the Netherlands; and he attended the Heroes’ Days celebration in the Netherlands, organized by LTTE. The Committee notes the complainant’s arguments that he was arrested on 20 November 2010 for transporting LTTE members at Bandaranaike International Airport in Katunayaka, just outside Colombo, and later tortured for alleged links with the resistance movement. On 24 December 2010, the complainant was released from detention following a ransom paid by a family friend, who also helped the complainant with his departure from Sri Lanka. 7.7 The Committee takes note of the State party’s submissions that the complainant has failed to provide credible evidence and to substantiate his claims that there was a foreseeable, real and personal risk that he would be subjected to torture by the authorities if returned to Sri Lanka, and that his claims have been thoroughly reviewed by the competent domestic authorities and courts, in accordance with domestic legislation and taking into account the current human rights situation in Sri Lanka. 7.8 The Committee notes that when assessing asylum applications from Sri Lanka, the State party assessed the complainant’s arguments with regard to the risk factors, owing to their alleged links with LTTE. The Committee notes that there is nothing in the present communication to indicate that the complainant or members of his family played any significant role in LTTE or had problems with the Sri Lankan authorities at any point in time. 17 18 19 8 CAT/C/LKA/CO/3-4, para. 6. Committee against Torture, general comment No. 4, para. 38. Ibid., para. 50.