CAT/C/71/D/884/2018 Tigers had ended in May 2009. 11 The Committee also refers to credible reports by nongovernmental organizations concerning the ill-treatment by the authorities in Sri Lanka of individuals who have been returned to the country.12 However, the Committee recalls that the occurrence of human rights violations in a complainant’s country of origin is not sufficient in itself to conclude that the complainant runs a personal risk of torture.13 Moreover, although past events may be of relevance, the principal question before the Committee is whether the complainant currently runs a risk of torture if returned to Sri Lanka. 14 9.9 In the present communication, the Committee observes that the domestic authorities found that the complainant’s account of his alleged membership of the Tamil Tigers, the 2010 incident that allegedly resulted in weapons charges and his subsequent abduction by the Karuna group – the central elements of his claim and the incidents that seem to have eventually triggered his departure from Sri Lanka – was not credible, because of its late presentation, doubts as to its genuineness and inconsistencies in the complainant’s prior statements during the domestic process of consideration. The Committee notes the complainant’s contention that he did not initially mention his time with the Tamil Tigers or his arrest and torture over the weapons possession incident because of his fear of an adverse security assessment as a member of a terrorist organization by the Australian Security Intelligence Organization, which could have resulted in indefinite detention. However, the Committee observes that the complainant was granted his first bridging visa on 20 November 2012 and released from detention on 15 February 2013, long before the conclusion of his protection visa application and Refugee Review Tribunal proceedings. The Committee also notes that after a copy of the arrest warrant became available to the complainant, he promptly submitted it as part of his request for ministerial intervention, along with his admission to having been a member of the Tamil Tigers. The Committee observes that no explanation was given by the complainant as to why he decided to reveal that information only at that particular point of the proceedings, and why the arrest warrant for him was issued only on 10 November 2017, when he allegedly skipped his bail on weapons charges in 2010 and left Sri Lanka in 2012. 9.10 The Committee notes that the complainant has failed to provide any information on his whereabouts between 2010 and 2012, except that he visited India for two weeks in 2012 using a false passport, for which he alleges to be at further risk of remand and imprisonment for up to five years. The Committee observes that the State party considered the possible risk for failed asylum seekers who leave Sri Lanka illegally and are returned, but did not accept that the complainant would face a real risk of irreparable harm, although he might receive a fine or a custodial sentence under the Immigrants and Emigrants Act. 9.11 Lastly, the Committee notes the complainant’s sur place claims: (a) that information related to his identity and details of his asylum claims were inadvertently published by Federal Circuit Court on the website of the Australasian Legal Information Institute; and (b) that several sensitive documents, including documents related to his asylum claim and photographs showing him with weapons, were mistakenly sent in his suitcase to Sri Lanka during his removal proceedings on 10 September 2018, and that since then, agents from the Criminal Investigation Department had visited the complainant’s parents’ home twice, as they were concerned that he may have arrived in Sri Lanka but then escaped from the airport through bribery. The Committee notes the State party’s submission that the complainant was not affected by the data breach, as it pertained to detainees in detention on 31 January 2014 only, and the complainant was not in detention at that time. The Committee further notes that the Federal Circuit Court and the Federal Court of Australia both upheld the determination of the Refugee Review Tribunal in which it did not accept that the appellant was suspected of being or perceived to be a member of the Tamil Tigers. With regard to the complainant’s second sur place claim, the Committee notes that the State party argues that this incident does not alter its assessment regarding the complainant’s claims about his membership of or association with the Tamil Tigers, and notes that this claim was considered as part of 11 12 13 14 12 CAT/C/LKA/CO/5, paras. 9–12. See Freedom from Torture, Tainted Peace: Torture in Sri Lanka since May 2009 (London, 2015). See also J.N. v. Denmark (CAT/C/57/D/628/2014), para. 7.9. R.D. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/51/D/426/2010), para. 9.2. Thirugnanasampanthar v. Australia (CAT/C/61/D/614/2014), para. 8.7.