CAT/C/71/D/884/2018 assessment of the request for ministerial intervention under section 48B of the Migration Act. The Committee observes that other than the fact that his suitcase was mistakenly sent to Sri Lanka, the complainant has been unable to provide any evidence that it contained documents or materials that would clearly point to his alleged membership in the Tamil Tigers. In this regard, the Committee takes note of the documents that the complainant submitted as part of his request for ministerial intervention dated 16 August 2018: the complainant was only able to produce photos of himself taken in front of a poster dated 2013 and in front of a Tamil Tigers shrine in a room, which do not prove his membership, and a photo of a young male in military uniform, who could not be conclusively identified as the complainant. The Committee expresses serious doubts as to the complainant’s claim of having included sensitive material in a suitcase for his return to Sri Lanka, thus exposing himself as a member of the Tamil Tigers: it is well known that returned asylum seekers in Sri Lanka are usually detained and interrogated at the airport, and carrying sensitive, self-incriminating material in this context seems unnecessary and unjustified and cannot be seen as reasonable. 9.12 In the light of the considerations above, and on the basis of all the information submitted to it by the complainant and the State party, including on the general situation of human rights in Sri Lanka, the Committee considers that, in the present case, the complainant has not discharged the burden of proof to demonstrate that his return to Sri Lanka would entail a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Furthermore, the complainant has not demonstrated that the authorities of the State party failed to conduct a proper investigation into his allegations. 10. The Committee therefore concludes that the complainant has failed to adduce sufficient grounds to enable it to believe that he would run a real, foreseeable, personal and present risk of being subjected to torture upon his return to Sri Lanka. 11. The Committee, 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 violation of article 3 of the Convention. 13