CAT/C/61/D/713/2015 with LTTE had ended in May 2009, and noting credible reports by non-governmental organizations 7 concerning the treatment of returned individuals by the Sri Lankan authorities, considers that the foregoing shows that Sri Lankans of Tamil ethnicity with a prior personal or familial connection to LTTE who are forcibly returned to Sri Lanka may face a risk of torture. 8 However, while not underestimating the concerns that may legitimately be expressed with respect to the current human rights situation in Sri Lanka, 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.9 The Committee also recalls that, although past events may be of relevance, the principle question before the Committee is whether the complainant currently runs a risk of torture if returned to Sri Lanka. 10 The Committee notes that, in its assessment of the complainant’s application for a protection visa, 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 claim. 9.8 In the light of the foregoing and on the basis of all the information submitted by the complainant and the State party, including on the general situation of human rights in Sri Lanka, the Committee considers that the complainant has not discharged the burden of proof 11 as he has not adequately demonstrated the existence of substantial grounds for believing that his forcible removal to his country of origin would expose him to a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention. Although the complainant disagrees with the assessment of his claims by the State party’s authorities, he has failed to demonstrate that the decision to refuse him a protection visa was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 10. Consequently, the Committee considers that the complainant has not provided sufficient evidence to enable it to conclude that his forcible removal to his country of origin would expose him to a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention. 11. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, decides that the complainant’s removal to Sri Lanka by the State party would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 7 8 9 10 11 6 See, for example, Freedom from Torture, Tainted Peace: Torture in Sri Lanka since May 2009, August 2015, available at: www.freedomfromtorture.org/sites/default/files/documents/sl_report_a4__final-f-b-web.pdf; and Yasmin Sooka, The Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales (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. See communication No. 429/2010, Sivagnanaratnam v. Denmark, decision adopted on 11 November 2013, paras. 10.5-10.6.