CAT/C/68/D/718/2015 general country information on Sri Lanka, failing to adduce evidence that he would be personally at risk of torture if he were returned. It notes the State party’s submission that the complainant’s allegations have been thoroughly considered under its national processes but have been found not to engage the State party’s non-refoulement obligations under the Convention. Even though the complainant’s accounts of the incidents that took place in the refugee camp, including his brother’s detention, were accepted as fact, the domestic authorities did not find it plausible that the complainant had been suspected by the authorities of having links with the Tamil Tigers. 7.6 The Committee also 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 of the persistence of abductions, torture and ill-treatment perpetrated by the State security forces, including the military and the police, which had continued in many parts of the country after the conflict with the Tamil Tigers ended in May 2009 (CAT/C/LKA/CO/5, paras. 9–12). It also refers to credible reports by nongovernmental organizations 6 concerning the treatment by the Sri Lankan authorities of individuals returned to Sri Lanka.7 However, the Committee recalls that the occurrence of human rights violations in one’s country of origin is not sufficient in itself to conclude that a complainant runs a personal risk of torture.8 The Committee also recalls that, although past events may be of relevance, the principal question before the Committee is whether the complainant currently runs a risk of torture if he is returned to Sri Lanka.9 7.7 In the present communication, the Committee observes that the complainant was not recruited by the Tamil Tigers, nor did he receive any substantial military training or participate in fighting against the Sri Lankan army. There is also no evidence of his family’s involvement with the Tamil Tigers, except for his brother’s past employment in a workshop allegedly owned by them. It is observed in that respect, that even though Sri Lankans of Tamil ethnicity with a prior personal or familial connection to the Tamil Tigers facing forcible return to Sri Lanka may be at risk of torture, in the present case10 the complainant makes reference to a one-time interrogation at the refugee camp and, contrary to his brother, has never been arrested or ill-treated by the authorities. Furthermore, considering that the complainant’s brother was eventually released by the State authorities, it seems that he was able clear himself from the accusation of having links to the Tamil Tigers. The Committee further observes that the fact that the complainant was able to leave Sri Lanka with his own passport without incident also shows the lack of interest of the State authorities in his whereabouts. In addition, he alleges harassment of his family after his departure from Sri Lanka, however, his allegations have only been substantiated by letters written by his relatives and, weighing all the circumstances of the case and the complainant’s low profile, they may have been produced for the occasion. Furthermore, the Committee is mindful of the length of time (at least seven years) that has elapsed since the alleged incidents concerned and of the absence of allegations as to whether the complainant has been sought by the Sri Lankan authorities. Finally, the Committee notes that on 19 December 2016, it granted the request of the State party to lift the interim measures. In August 2017, the State party returned the complainant to Sri Lanka. 8. The Committee refers to its general comment No. 4 (2017), according to which the burden of proof is upon the author of the communication, who must present an arguable case (para. 38). In the Committee’s opinion, in the present case, the complainant has not discharged that burden of proof. Furthermore, the complainant has not demonstrated that the authorities of the State party failed to conduct a proper assessment of his allegations. 9. The Committee therefore concludes that the complainant has not adduced 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. 6 7 8 9 10 6 See Freedom from Torture, “Tainted peace: torture in Sri Lanka since May 2009” (August 2015). See J.N. v. Denmark (CAT/C/57/D/628/2014), para. 7.9. See, for example, R.D. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/51/D/426/2010), para. 9.2. See, for example, Subakaran R. Thirugnanasampanthar v. Australia (CAT/C/61/D/614/2014), para. 8.7. See J.N. v. Denmark, para. 7.9.