CAT/C/59/D/652/2015 9.6 The Committee also takes note of the State party’s arguments that its authorities reviewed all the allegations and evidence submitted to them by the complainant and determined that most of the claims were not credible. Its authorities’ decisions also relied on reports that indicate that only those Tamils who are suspected of having links to LTTE face persecution in Sri Lanka, and that the complainant has not demonstrated that he is a person suspected of having significant and concrete links with LTTE. Likewise, available country information consulted by the Refugee Review Tribunal indicated that militia and armed groups such as Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pullikal continue to operate in Sri Lanka, that they have established political parties and that they have increasingly taken on the characteristics of criminal gangs as they sought to solidify their territory and revenue sources. 9.7 Regarding the complainant’s claim that he risks being subjected to torture upon return to Sri Lanka owing to his status as a failed asylum seeker of Tamil ethnicity, the Committee, while not underestimating the concerns that may be legitimately expressed with respect to the current human rights situation in Sri Lanka and the treatment of, inter alia, failed asylum seekers from overseas, recalls that the occurrence of human rights violations in his or her country of origin is not sufficient in itself to conclude that a complainant runs a personal risk of torture. 11 The Committee observes that the updated UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum Seekers From Sri Lanka, issued on 21 December 2012, no longer refer to a presumption of eligibility for protection of Sri Lankans simply on the grounds that they are Tamils originating from the north of the country, even though they do caution that a merits-based assessment on the basis of individual circumstances is still warranted and that Tamil ethnicity and place of origin can still be factors increasing the vulnerability of persons within other “risk profiles” whose protection claims warrant particularly close attention. 9.8 In this context, the Committee refers to its consideration in 2016 of the fifth periodic report of Sri Lanka, 12 when it voiced serious concern about reports suggesting that abductions, torture and ill-treatment perpetrated by State security forces in Sri Lanka, including the police, had continued in many parts of the country after the conflict with LTTE ended in May 2009.13 The Committee was also concerned at the reprisals against victims of and witnesses to acts of torture and at the acts of abduction and torture in unacknowledged detention facilities, and inquired whether a prompt, impartial and effective investigation of any such acts had been undertaken.14 9.9 In the present case, the Committee observes that it is not disputed that the complainant is of Tamil ethnicity and from the Eastern Province of Sri Lanka. Although the Refugee Review Tribunal had doubts about the authenticity of the complainant’s evidence concerning his alleged detention in 1993-1994, it found that, even if he were given the benefit of the doubt, there was no corroboration that the complainant had encountered problems with the Sri Lankan authorities owing to his ethnicity and/or suspected connections with LTTE since 1994, when he was released without charges by a court order. The complainant alleges that in 1999 and 2000, he was again detained and tortured by the police and the Criminal Investigation Division, respectively, and that in 1999 the officers referred to the alleged confession he had previously been forced to sign. The Committee observes, however, that he submitted no evidence in support of these allegations within the protection visa proceedings, or before. Moreover, the complainant was able to travel abroad in 2006 and to return to Sri Lanka in 2009, establishing his residence in Chenkalady/Eravur 11 12 13 14 See, for example, communication No. 426/2010, R.D. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 8 November 2013, para. 9.2. See CAT/C/SR.1472 and 1475. See CAT/C/LKA/CO/3-4, para. 6. See CAT/C/SR.1472, paras. 36 and 42; and CAT/C/SR.1475. paras. 10 and 27. 9