CAT/C/60/D/648/2015 would fear harm because of the visa issue and not the financial contributions. It does not accept that the complainant has only recently become cognizant of the risk engendered by financial support to LTTE. 6.13 On the subject of his escape from the Karuna camp and inconsistencies in relation thereto, the State party considers that the Karuna group would, in any case, be highly unlikely to remain concerned about his escape from a camp in 2008. In view of the complainant’s lack of a relevant profile and the passage of time, the State party concludes that there is no evidence to support the claim that the complainant would be suspected of links with LTTE and would be at any risk of harm if returned. 6.14 Concerning the issue of the complainant’s passport, the State party notes that the complainant, in his entry interview, claimed that he had travelled to Singapore and TimorLeste on a genuine passport. In the first independent merits review, the decision record notes that the complainant advised the reviewer that he had travelled from Sri Lanka on his own passport. At the second review, he stated that he had filled out the papers and gave them, along with photographs, to his friend and was not sure if the passport he received was a genuine document. He denied that he had ever said it was obtained legally. The complainant claimed that when he returned to Sri Lanka he was assisted in getting through security. The State party considers that there is no reason to believe that the complainant was of any interest to authorities such that assistance was necessary or that he had such connections as would save him from negative attention if he were of interest. The second independent merits review concluded that the complainant had departed and returned to Sri Lanka legally on his own passport without repercussions and is therefore of no interest to the authorities in Sri Lanka. Claims that he left illegally are not accepted by the State party as it maintains that no evidence has been adduced in support. 6.15 Regarding the complainant’s claim that as a young Tamil male from the Eastern Province he would be vulnerable to persecution, the State party assesses that the country situation is now stable and the complainant has adduced no information which would change the assessment of the second independent merits review that he would not be at risk of harm for this reason. 23 6.16 Finally, even were all of the author’s claims to be accepted, his treatment, of itself, does not necessarily engage Australia’s non-refoulement obligations under the Convention. The complainant has had no profile, either before or after departing Sri Lanka, that would be of any interest to the Government or the Karuna group such that he would suffer torture if returned to Sri Lanka. State party’s request to lift interim measures 7. By note verbale dated 28 July 2016, the State party requested the Committee to withdraw its request for interim measures on the basis of the domestic processes and conclusions reached as outlined in prior submissions. 24 Complainant’s comments on the State party’s additional observations 8.1 The complainant’s representative presented further comments on 29 August 2016. 8.2 Regarding the lodging of an application for the complainant’s visa at the High Commission, the complainant restates his claim that the accounts he gave are consistent and that any differences can be attributed to simple semantics. He reiterates that his statement about a potential informant was mere speculation based on the assumption that the visa application had been lodged, and therefore produced no inconsistency. 23 24 12 The State party also refers to the change in Government in Sri Lanka, the new President and the Task Force on Reconciliation set up by him. These facts, avers the State party, are evidence of an improvement in the security situation since the complainant’s claims were considered by the State party’s authorities and therefore there has been no decline in the country situation that would indicate that he would now be at risk of torture under article 3 of the Convention upon return to Sri Lanka. Prior submissions were annexed to the note verbale.