CAT/C/60/D/708/2015 the complainant’s argument that he left Sri Lanka using bribes, the Committee considers that he has not sufficiently substantiated his allegations in that regard. 8.11 The Committee also notes the State party’s contention that there is no evidence that the complainant has ever been involved in political activities, that he has a political profile of any significance, or that he has a criminal record, which would make him a target in Sri Lanka. The Committee considers that the complainant has failed to provide credible evidence and sufficient substantiation to enable it to conclude to the contrary and to establish that there is a foreseeable, real and personal risk that owing to his past support for LTTE, he would be subjected to torture by the authorities if returned to Sri Lanka. 8.12 In the light of those considerations, read as a whole, the Committee concludes that the complainant has not adduced sufficient grounds for it to conclude that he runs a real, foreseeable, personal and present risk of being subjected to torture upon return to Sri Lanka. The Committee thus considers that the material before it does not enable it to conclude that the return of the complainant would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 9. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee against Torture, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the complainant’s removal to Sri Lanka by the State party would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 13