CAT/C/71/D/834/2017 4.5 The State party notes that although the human rights situation in Sri Lanka gives cause for concern, in view of information available from various public sources, the State party maintains that there is no reason to conclude that removal to Sri Lanka would in itself involve a risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention. Although the situation of Tamils in general and of former LTTE members in particular remains a cause for concern, there is no reason to assume that every Tamil, whether or not they have had links in the past with LTTE, will be subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention in Sri Lanka. In this context, the State party maintains that the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. The risk must be personal and present and the complainant must demonstrate that there is a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture. 15 4.6 The State party observes that all the statements made by the complainant have been carefully assessed, resulting in the conclusion that his account in support of his asylum application must be deemed implausible. Although the factual information provided by the complainant – that is, his civil status, ethnic origin, religion and work as the driver of a minibus taxi in Colombo – is deemed credible, the rest of his account, in particular his statements regarding his arrest, subsequent release and departure via the airport at which he had previously been arrested, is deemed to lack credibility. The State party also notes that even if his arrest and detention were considered credible, it would not have affected the outcome of the analysis of the risks he would face in Sri Lanka. 4.7 The State party submits that it does not consider the reasons the complainant gave for leaving Sri Lanka to be credible, particularly when he claimed that he was detained for a month and subjected to torture by the Sri Lankan authorities because he was suspected of having links to LTTE. The State party notes that, even if it is probable that the complainant had been arrested and subjected to torture in the past, it has not been satisfactorily established that he would face a risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention upon return to Sri Lanka. The State party further notes that alleged torture in the past does not necessarily constitute a present risk of torture and that the complainant must establish that there are substantial grounds for believing that he would risk torture if expelled at present. 4.8 The State party further notes that the complainant’s claims in relation to: his travel route and documents; his arrest and suspicion of LTTE activism; his detention and release after payment of a ransom; his visit to the embassy; and the situation surrounding his mother and wife, lacked plausible credibility. The complainant submitted no travel document, airline ticket or indicative evidence that could substantiate his alleged travel route. He provided inconsistent information at various stages of the asylum procedures. He initially stated that he had travelled on a forged passport, whereas later, he claimed to have travelled using a document that belonged to someone who looked like him. The complainant failed to submit the passport or any other document upon his arrival in Romania, although he was in a safe country, where he could have submitted a request for international protection. Consequently, the State party continues, he has chosen not to hand over his passport to a travel intermediary. The fact that he did not submit his passport or any other indicative evidence of his alleged travel route counts against him and undermines the credibility of his story. 4.9 The State party considers it implausible that the complainant would have come under suspicion during a routine identity check of the people in his minibus, simply because he said, out of politeness, that he knew his passengers. The complainant did not carry out any activities for LTTE, nor was he, or any member of his family, a member or sympathizer of the organization. According to his statements, none of his family members belonged to LTTE. Since the State party finds it implausible that the complainant would have been under suspicion, it follows that it is also implausible that he was detained for a month, interrogated and beaten several times by the army on account of his alleged participation in LTTE. 4.10 The State party, commenting on the complainant’s statements concerning his detention and torture, submits that they were vague, cursory and conflicting. The State party finds it odd that the complainant, after having been beaten and having broken an ankle, did 15 Reference is made to: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from Sri Lanka, 21 December 2012. 5