CAT/C/60/D/708/2015 2004. It also takes note of the State party’s argument that the complainant first denied having travelled out of Sri Lanka before travelling to Australia, but that during the independent merits review on 28 November 2010, he admitted that he had travelled to India in 2007. 8.7 The Committee notes the complainant’s explanation that he initially denied being a member of LTTE because of his fear of the way his membership would be perceived by the State party. It also notes the complainant’s contention that while he has been inconsistent as to the dates of his incarceration and torture, he has been consistent as to the torture he suffered with the approval of the Government of Sri Lanka. In that regard the Committee notes that the torture and trauma assessment report from the Association for Services to Torture and Trauma Survivors, dated 24 May 2016, found that the complainant was at risk level 3 on the Harvard trauma questionnaire and that the results indicated that the complainant was suffering from a severe level of symptoms associated with post-traumatic stress disorder and that his symptoms were mostly due to the torture he had endured. However, the Committee considers that, while the report gives indications that the complainant may have experienced traumatic events in the past, it cannot be considered as conclusive evidence that the complainant has been a victim of torture. The Committee therefore considers that the complainant has failed to provide conclusive evidence that he was subjected to torture in the past. 8.8 The Committee notes the complainant’s submission that, according to public reports, Tamils with real or perceived links with LTTE, at any level and whether current or historic, are at particular ongoing risk of torture. While not underestimating the concerns that may be legitimately expressed with respect to the current human rights situation in Sri Lanka, the Committee recalls that the occurrence of human rights violations in his or her country of origin is not sufficient in itself to conclude that a complainant runs a personal risk of torture.45 In that context, the Committee refers to its concluding observations following its examination of the fifth periodic report of Sri Lanka in 2015, in which it expressed concern about reports regarding the persistence of torture and ill-treatment perpetrated by State actors (both the military and the police) in Sri Lanka. 46 The Committee also refers to the report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment following an official visit to Sri Lanka from 29 April to 7 May 2016, in which he noted that torture and ill-treatment, including of a sexual nature, were still occurring and that the current legal framework and the lack of reform within the structures of the armed forces, the police, the Office of the Attorney-General and the judiciary perpetuated the risk of torture.47 8.9 The Committee also takes note of credible reports published by non-governmental organizations concerning the treatment given by the Sri Lankan authorities to individuals who have returned to Sri Lanka.48 The Committee considers that all of the above shows that Sri Lankans of Tamil ethnicity with a prior personal or familial connection to LTTE facing forcible return to Sri Lanka may face a risk of torture. 49 8.10 In the present case, the Committee notes the complainant’s argument that the photograph he presented in his submission confirms that he was a member of LTTE. However, it also notes the State party’s contention that its authorities have accepted that the complainant supported LTTE in the past, but that he did not have a profile of significance that would put him at risk if he returned to Sri Lanka. In that connection, the Committee notes the State party’s submission that the complainant was able to leave and return to Sri Lanka in 2007 through the international airport in Colombo and did not raise the interest of the Sri Lankan authorities. Nor did he face any persecution on that occasion. While noting 45 46 47 48 49 12 See, for example, communication No. 426/2010, R.D. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 8 November 2013, para. 9.2. See CAT/C/LKA/CO/5, paras. 9-12. See A/HRC/34/54/Add.2, paras. 110 and 113. See, for example, Human Rights Watch, “UK: suspend deportations of Tamils to Sri Lanka”, 29 May 2012, available from www.hrw.org/print/news/2012/05/29/uk-suspend-deportations-tamils-sri-lanka; and Freedom from Torture, “Tainted peace: torture in Sri Lanka since May 2009”. See communication No. 628/2014, J.N. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 13 May 2016, para. 7.9.