CAT/C/65/D/761/2016 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).13 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). 9.4 The Committee notes the complainant’s claim that he would face a risk of torture if he were returned to Sri Lanka because he went through a two-week basic self-defence training course with the Tamil Tigers in the past and assisted in organizing its operations in the area in his capacity as a carpenter. In addition, his brother was summoned by the Tamil Tigers for border protection duty, and since then his family has not heard from him or known his whereabouts, because they, including the complainant, were moved in 2009 to the Chettikulam camp in an area controlled by the army. On several occasions in the camp, the complainant was interrogated by the Sri Lanka Army and the Criminal Investigation Department about his brother’s whereabouts. He escaped from the camp in 2010 after his father-in-law arranged for his release by paying a bribe, after which his father-in-law was allegedly murdered. The Committee also notes the complainant’s contention that his claims have not been properly assessed by the domestic authorities because the refugee status assessment and the independent merits review, the first two stages of the domestic asylum process, were not carried out by truly independent officials as they had been appointed by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and they were on the payroll of that Department. 9.5 The Committee also takes note of the State party’s submission that the complainant makes his claims on the basis of generalized information from various public reports and refers to 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 his allegations have been thoroughly considered by a series of domestic decision-making processes and have been found not to engage its non-refoulement obligations under the Convention or under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 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 regarding the persistence of abductions, torture and ill-treatment perpetrated by State security forces in Sri Lanka, including the military and the police,14 which had continued in many parts of the country after the conflict with the Tamil Tigers ended in May 2009. It also refers to credible reports by non-governmental organizations 15 concerning the treatment of individuals returned to Sri Lanka by the Sri Lankan authorities.16 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.17 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. 18 9.6 In the present communication, the Committee observes that the complainant had not been recruited by the Tamil Tigers, received any substantial military training or participated 13 14 15 16 17 18 T.Z. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/62/D/688/2015), para. 8.4. See CAT/C/LKA/CO/5, paras. 9–12. See Freedom from Torture, “Tainted Peace: Torture in Sri Lanka since May 2009”. 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. 9