CAT/C/57/D/628/2014 7.10 In the present case, the complainant has alleged—and this remained unrefuted by the State party—that he has both a prior personal and a prior family connection to LTTE, and that he previously was detained and tortured by a paramilitary group associated with the Sri Lankan authorities because of the perceived LTTE family connection. Accordingly, the Committee finds that, taking into account all the factors in this particular case read as a whole, and in the light of the reports regarding the current human rights situation in Sri Lanka, which do not appear to have been sufficiently taken into account by the State party’s authorities, including in the context of the present communication, and given the complainant’s previous ill-treatment in Sri Lanka in 2008, there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would face a real, personal and substantial risk of being subjected to torture in the event of forcible return to Sri Lanka. 8. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture by the authorities if returned to Sri Lanka. The Committee therefore decides that the deportation of the complainant to Sri Lanka would amount to a breach of article 3 of the Convention by the State party. 9. The Committee is of the view that the State party has an obligation, in accordance with article 3 of the Convention, to refrain from forcibly returning the complainant to Sri Lanka or to any other country where there is a real risk of him being expelled or returned to Sri Lanka. Pursuant to rule 118, paragraph 5, of its rules of procedure, the Committee invites the State party to inform it, within 90 days from the date of the transmittal of the present decision, of the steps it has taken in response thereto. 13