CAT/C/57/D/605/2014 while at the same time it is not bound by such findings and instead has the power, by virtue of article 22 (4) of the Convention, of free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case.25 9.5 The Committee notes the complainant’s claim that his forcible removal to Sri Lanka would amount to a violation of his rights under article 3 of the Convention, as he would be exposed to a risk of being tortured and suffering cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, particularly at the hands of the Criminal Investigation Department, the Sri Lankan army or associated paramilitary groups, as he is suspected of being a member and supporter of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. The Committee also notes the State party’s allegations that the complainant has not provided any relevant new evidence to the Committee that had not already been considered through robust and comprehensive domestic administrative and judicial processes. In that regard, the Committee notes the State party’s submission that the migration authorities questioned the credibility of the complainant’s statements due to inconsistencies in his testimony, including with regard to his claims that he was harmed during the interview conducted in 2006, that he travelled with Mr. K. to Kilinochchi, that he was interrogated in 2008 in connection with another relative’s death and that he was looked for in 2011. The Committee further notes the State party’s submission that the author had lived, worked and travelled in Sri Lanka without harm, persecution or abduction at least from the end of the war until his departure in June 2012, and that he had never been accused of having any involvement with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. The Committee notes that the State party considered as evidence that the author’s family members continue to live in Trincomalee without problems, and also that it was not satisfied that the complainant’s connection with relatives killed during the civil war, including Mr. K., would in the reasonably foreseeable future impute to him any links to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam which would give rise to a real and personal risk of serious harm in Sri Lanka. Moreover, the Committee takes into account the State party’s assertions that the post-mortem report does not support the author’s claims, since it does not contain any information to link the person referred to or the author to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, while the State party’s doubts about the genuineness of the post-mortem report remain undisputed.26 9.6 The Committee also notes the complainant’s claim that he is a member of a Facebook group called “Cool Tamils”. However, the ministerial intervention proceedings concluded that as the complainant was not perceived as an active Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam affiliate by the Sri Lankan authorities, it was highly unlikely that membership of a Facebook group alone would attract adverse attention resulting in serious or significant harm. In this connection, the Committee notes that the ministerial intervention was declined, as there were no substantial grounds for believing that the complainant was at a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture if returned to Sri Lanka. 9.7 Furthermore, the Committee notes the complainant’s claim that as he left Sri Lanka unlawfully, he fears being arrested by the Sri Lankan authorities upon arrival at Colombo Airport, being subsequently detained in inhumane and degrading conditions at the Negombo Remand Unit and facing charges and eventual imprisonment as an illegal returnee or failed asylum seeker. The Committee notes that the State party accepted that the complainant would go through a process upon returning to Sri Lanka and that he would be subjected to a fine but not a custodial sentence for departing illegally. The Committee also notes the State party’s claims that there were no reports of torture or other forms of deliberate mistreatment at the Negombo Remand Unit, which were not disputed by the complainant. In this connection, the Committee notes the complainant’s reliance on general 25 26 GE.16-09596 See, inter alia, communication No. 356/2008, N.S. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 6 May 2010. See para. 7.5, in which it is noted that the Department of Immigration and Border Protection assessed the post-mortem report as appearing to be fraudulent. 13