CAT/C/30/D/197/2002 page 7 specialized treatment and is thus mentally vulnerable to the emotional stress life in Sri Lanka would inevitably cause him. Thus, this in itself may constitute suffering tantamount to torture. State party’s supplementary comments 6.1 On 28 February 2003, the State party submits that the new information provided by the petitioner on his activities on behalf of the TELO is unreliable, as it had never been mentioned by the petitioner until his letter to the Committee of 4 November 2002. His explanation that he was afraid that the LTTE would find out about his activities does not explain his failure to mention this incident earlier in the same way that he mentioned his activities carried out on behalf of the PLOTE, which also acted against the LTTE. Moreover, given that the alleged activities took place nearly 20 years ago, it would be unlikely that the petitioner would be subject to retaliation by the LTTE. 6.2 The State party also submits that the fact that the petitioner returned to Sri Lanka without any adverse consequences after being refused asylum in Germany supports the view that he would not be personally at risk of being subjected to torture upon his return to Sri Lanka. It refers to the reports submitted by the petitioner on the human rights situation in Sri Lanka and observes that the Directorate of Immigration as well as the national courts already took these reports into account when considering his application for asylum. It also observes that, at least on two occasions, the Committee found that the LTTE may not be considered an authority within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention.4 Issues and proceedings before the Committee 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. 7.2 The issue before the Committee is whether or not the forced return of the petitioner to Sri Lanka would violate the obligation of Finland under article 3 of the Convention not to expel a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 7.3 In reaching this decision, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. The aim of this determination, however, is to establish whether the individuals concerned would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would return. It follows that the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his return to that country; additional grounds must exist to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. Similarly, the absence of a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights does not mean that a person cannot be considered to be in danger of being subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances. 7.4 The Committee observes its general comment on the implementation of article 3 which reads: