CAT/C/57/D/628/2014 torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment) must be assessed primarily with reference to those facts which were known or ought to have been known to the Contracting State at the time of the expulsion […] and should not be evaluated with the wisdom of hindsight”. In this context, the State party further relies on the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights7 and the Committee’s decision in A.A.R. v. Denmark8 and asserts that, in the present case, when assessing the complainant’s actual risk upon his return to Sri Lanka, the Refugee Appeals Board took into account the information on the complainant’s personal circumstances, including his and his family’s profiling in the light of the available background information on the conditions of Tamils in Sri Lanka. This assessment was made in accordance with the principles set out by the European Court in N.A. v. the United Kingdom (application No. 25904/07), in which the Court stated, inter alia, that, regardless of the deterioration of the security situation in Sri Lanka and the resulting increase in human rights violations, this did not create a general risk to all Tamils returning to Sri Lanka. The Court further concluded that an assessment of both the risk to ethnic Tamils with certain characteristics and of whether individual acts of harassment could cumulatively amount to a serious violation of human rights had to be made specifically and individually in every case. 4.11 The State party further notes five cases submitted by ethnic Tamils from Sri Lanka against Denmark,9 in which the European Court of Human Rights reached the conclusion that returning the applicants to Sri Lanka would not constitute a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court maintained its conclusion from N.A. v. the United Kingdom that ethnic Tamils could not be considered at risk of ill-treatment if returned to Sri Lanka and found that the background material concerning the situation in Sri Lanka was not of such a nature that any returning Tamil would risk ill-treatment. The Court also stated that protection under article 3 of the European Convention would only be applicable when an applicant could establish that there were serious reasons to believe that she or he would be of sufficient interest to the authorities and would be detained and interrogated upon return on that account. 4.12 In the present case, according to its decision of 11 November 2013, the Refugee Appeals Board also assessed the matter in the light of the most recent background information on conditions in Sri Lanka at that time, including the information in the UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from Sri Lanka, which lists certain groups of persons with particular connections to LTTE who may need international protection. In this connection, the State party notes that the complainant stated before the State party’s authorities that he had been a member of the Sea Tigers, the naval unit of LTTE, from 1992 to 2000 and that this had not caused him any problems. Further, none of the complainant’s sons had been a member of LTTE and they had received military training for only two weeks as consideration for the aid received from LTTE in connection with the tsunami in 2004. As regards his brother’s situation, the complainant had stated to the authorities of Denmark that his brother had been a member of LTTE, but had experienced some problems when Indian troops arrived in Sri Lanka in 1987, and that he had then fled and subsequently been granted asylum in Norway. 7 8 9 6 admissibility of application No. 11230/07 (13 October 2009). See European Court of Human Rights, Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden, application No. 15576/89, judgment of 20 March 1991, paras. 77-82; and Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, applications Nos. 13163/87, 13164/87, 13165/87, 13447/87 and 13448/87, judgment of 30 October 1991, para. 107. Communication No. 412/2010, A.A. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 13 November 2012. European Court of Human Rights, N.S. v. Denmark (application No. 58359/08), P.K. v. Denmark (application No. 54705/08), S.S. and Others v. Denmark (application No. 54703/08), T.N. and S.N. v. Denmark (application No. 36517/08) and T.N. v. Denmark (application No. 20594/08).