CAT/C/32/D/182/2001 Page 8 criminal proceedings against the complainant in the past, as well as his low political profile, can in turn be adduced as factors likely to lower any risk of serious consequences, should he be arrested again. 6.7 The Committee considers it unlikely that the Sri Lankan authorities, or the militia groups allegedly acting with their consent or acquiescence, remain interested in the LTTE involvement of the complainant’s younger brother, who died almost eight years ago. 6.8 With regard to the question of whether the complainant would be able to receive adequate psychiatric treatment for his post-traumatic stress disorder in Sri Lanka, the Committee recalls that the aggravation of the complainant’s state of health possibly resulting from his deportation to Sri Lanka would not amount to torture within the meaning of article 3, read in conjunction with article 1, of the Convention, which could be attributed to the State party itself.5 6.9 The Committee therefore is of the view that the complainant has not adduced sufficient grounds which would lead the Committee to conclude that he would run a substantial, present and personal risk of torture if returned to Sri Lanka. 7. The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 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. [Adopted in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic and Chinese as part of the Committee's annual report to the General Assembly.] -------- 5 See Communication No. 186/2001, K. K. v. Switzerland, Decision adopted on 11 November 2003, at para. 6.8.