CAT/C/68/D/718/2015 Consideration of the merits 7.1 In accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, the Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties. 7.2 In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the return of the complainant to Sri Lanka has violated the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or return a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. In assessing that risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3 (2) of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the Committee recalls that the aim of such determination is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would be returned.3 It follows that the existence of a pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute sufficient reason for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture on return to that country; additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk.4 Conversely, the absence of a consistent pattern of flagrant violations of human rights does not mean that a person might not be subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances.5 7.3 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, according to which the Committee will assess “substantial grounds” and consider the risk of torture as foreseeable, personal, present and real when the existence of credible facts relating to the risk by itself, at the time of its decision, would affect the rights of the complainant under the Convention in case of his or her deportation. Indications of personal risk may include, but are not limited to: (a) the complainant’s ethnic background; (b) political affiliation or political activities of the complainant or his or her family members; (c) arrest or detention without guarantee of a fair treatment and trial; and (d) sentence in absentia (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). 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). 7.4 In assessing the risk of torture in the present case, the Committee notes the complainant’s claim that if he were returned to Sri Lanka, he would face a risk of torture and other kinds of ill-treatment by the Sri Lankan army because of his Tamil ethnicity. The Committee takes note of the complainant’s assertion that on one occasion in the refugee camp, the complainant, together with other men, was interrogated by the Sri Lankan army about their possible involvement with the Tamil Tigers. On another occasion, the complainant’s brother, who had previously worked in a workshop owned by the Tamil Tigers, was arrested, detained and ill-treated by the army because of his past employment. These circumstances show, according to the complainant, that the Sri Lankan army believes he has been affiliated with the Tamil Tigers and would be again if he were returned to Sri Lanka. The Committee also notes his contention that he escaped from the camp and managed to leave Sri Lanka after his parents arranged for his release by paying a bribe to the Karuna group and he is therefore at risk of harm because of his illegal departure from Sri Lanka and his profile as a failed asylum seeker. 7.5 The Committee notes the State party’s submission that the complainant makes his claims on the basis of generalized information from various public reports and refers to 3 4 5 See M.S. v. Denmark (CAT/C/55/D/571/2013), para. 7.3. Ibid. Ibid. 5