CAT/C/68/D/855/2017 being credible. Taking into account the lack of information demonstrating the continued interest of Sri Lankan authorities in him, and his political inactivity since 2012, the State party’s authorities concluded that the complainant would not risk being tortured for his political activities upon return. Furthermore, the Committee notes the State party’s finding that the complainant has failed to substantiate a personal risk of being tortured based on his relationship with his uncle and that it is reasonable to conclude that this alleged risk of harm has ceased to exist because of the uncle’s recent death. As regards this conclusion, the Committee notes that the complainant has not provided sufficient explanations as to why the uncle’s political rival had specifically targeted him and would continue to harm him even after the uncle’s death. Regarding the alleged risk because of his profile as a failed asylum seeker, the Committee observes that the State party’s authorities considered the possible risk of ill-treatment of failed asylum seekers upon return to Sri Lanka, but did not accept that he would be suspected of supporting the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, although he might be subjected to some scrutiny upon arrival. The Committee also observes that the State party’s authorities took note of the complainant’s own statement that such suspicion was unlikely given his Sinhalese ethnicity and consistent support for the Sinhalese nationalist parties. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee is of the view that the State party’s authorities gave appropriate consideration to the complainant’s claims. 9.8 With regard to the complainant’s claim that the Refugee Review Tribunal dismissed his concern about confidentiality, the Committee recalls its general comment No. 4, in which it states that each case should be examined individually, impartially and independently by the State party through competent administrative and/or judicial authorities, in conformity with essential procedural safeguards, notably the guarantee of a prompt and transparent process, a review of the deportation decision and a suspensive effect of the appeal (para. 13). In the present case, the Committee notes that, while alleging that he did not trust the Tribunal’s confidentiality procedures despite its assurances, the complainant has not shown how the Tribunal’s detailed assessment of his application was affected by a lack of independence or impartiality, or that the assessment in question was clearly arbitrary, unfair or amounted to a denial of justice for him. 10. In the light of the considerations above, and on the basis of all the information submitted by the complainant and the State party, including on the general situation of human rights in Sri Lanka, the Committee considers that, in the present case, the complainant has not discharged the burden of proof to demonstrate that his return to Sri Lanka would entail a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 8 Furthermore, the complainant has not demonstrated that the authorities of the State party failed to conduct a proper investigation into his allegations. 11. The Committee therefore concludes that the complainant has not adduced sufficient grounds to enable it to believe that he would run a real, foreseeable, personal and present risk of being subjected to torture upon his return to Sri Lanka. 12. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the complainant’s removal to Sri Lanka by the State party would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 8 General comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, para. 38. 9