CAT/C/71/D/884/2018 treatment and trial; (d) sentence in absentia; and (e) previous torture (para. 45). With respect to the merits of a communication submitted under article 22 of the Convention, the burden of proof is upon the author of the communication, who must present an arguable case, that is, submit substantiated arguments showing that the danger of being subjected to torture is foreseeable, present, personal and real (para. 38).9 The Committee also recalls that it gives considerable weight to findings of fact made by organs of the State party concerned, however it is not bound by such findings, as it can make a free assessment of the information available to it in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, taking into account all the circumstances relevant to each case (para. 50). 9.5 The Committee notes the complainant’s claim that he would face a risk of torture if he were returned to Sri Lanka because, in the past, he underwent a three-month self-defence training course with the Tamil Tigers, which included weapons training. After the training, he worked as a medic for the Tamil Tigers, treating those who had been wounded in combat and driving them to hospitals if their injuries were too severe to be treated on site. The Committee also notes the complainant’s claim that in 2010, he was charged with weapons possession following his arrest by the Sri Lanka Navy during a meeting with three former friends from the Tamil Tigers, one of whom had a pistol. The complainant was taken to Kuchchaveli police station, where he was stripped down to his underwear and beaten with a pipe. After two weeks in custody, during which time he was subjected to further torture, the complainant was released on bail. However, after his release on bail, he was abducted by the Karuna group and spent seven days in their custody, again being subjected to beatings. He was questioned about his uncle, who had earlier been shot by the Karuna group, and about his own contacts within the Tamil Tigers. The complainant’s mother paid a bribe to the Karuna group, and he was released a week later and went into hiding. 9.6 The Committee also notes the State party’s submission that the domestic processes have had regard to the complainant’s claims and evidence, including having due regard to inconsistencies and problems of proof in relation to his claims. According to the State party, those claims also changed at each stage of the domestic process of consideration prior to the complainant’s submission of his communication to the Committee. The State party considers that the complainant has not provided credible evidence to substantiate his claims that the authorities in Sri Lanka perceive him to have a personal connection with the Tamil Tigers or to be affiliated with them in any way, or that there is foreseeable, personal, present and real risk that he will be tortured. The Committee notes that the State party acknowledges that complete accuracy can seldom be expected from victims of torture, and that this factor was taken into consideration by domestic decision makers in forming views on the complainant’s credibility. 9.7 The Committee notes in this connection that according to general legal principles of the law of evidence, the burden of proof lies on the person who makes the assertion. Thus, in refugee claims, it is the applicant who has the burden of establishing the veracity of his or her allegations and the accuracy of the facts on which the refugee claim is based. The burden of proof is discharged by the applicant rendering a truthful account of facts relevant to the claim so that, based on the facts, a proper decision may be reached. In view of the particularities of a refugee’s situation, the adjudicator shares the duty to ascertain and evaluate all the relevant facts. This is achieved, to a large extent, by the adjudicator being familiar with the objective situation in the country of origin concerned, being aware of relevant matters of common knowledge, guiding the applicant in providing the relevant information and adequately verifying facts alleged that can be substantiated. 10 9.8 The Committee further notes the current human rights situation in Sri Lanka and refers to its concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of Sri Lanka, in which it expressed concern, inter alia, about reports regarding the persistence of abductions, torture and illtreatment perpetrated by State security forces in Sri Lanka, including the military and the police, which had continued in many parts of the country after the conflict with the Tamil 9 10 T.Z. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/62/D/688/2015), para. 8.4. See Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, “Note on burden and standard of proof in refugee claims”, 16 December 1998. 11