CAT/C/35/D/231/2003 Page 9 the Colombo High Court with translations dated 18 August 2000. But even if these documents were to be cons idered authentic, they merely prove that the first complainant was detained and released on bail and that, subsequently, he might have been indicted and tried in absentia for attempted robbery. In this regard, the Committee recalls that the mere fact that the first complainant would be arrested, retried and possibly convicted in Sri Lanka would not as of itself constitute torture within the meaning of article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention; nor would it constitute substantial grounds for believing that any of the complainants would be in danger of being subjected to torture in the event of their return to Sri Lanka. 5 7.7 With regard to the desertion from the Sri Lankan army in 1994/95 of the second complainant’s ex- husband, the Committee does not consider that any of the complainants would have to fear persecution on the basis of family co-responsibility, as the second complainant’s marriage was dissolved by divorce judgment of 5 October 1999. 7.8 In the light of the above, the Committee need not consider the first complainant’s request, under Rule 111, paragraph 4, of the Committee’s rules of procedure, for a personal hearing. 7.9 The Committee therefore concludes that the complainants have not adduced sufficient grounds for believing that they would run a substantial, personal and present risk of being subjected to torture upon return to Sri Lanka. 8. The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, concludes that the complainants’ removal to Sri Lanka by the State party would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. ----[Adopted in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic and Chinese as part of the Committee's annual report to the General Assembly.] 5 See Communication No. 57/1996, P.Q.L. v. Canada, Views adopted on 17 November 1997, at para. 10.5.