CAT/C/61/D/614/2014 credible reports by non-governmental organizations27 concerning the treatment by the Sri Lankan authorities of individuals returned to Sri Lanka. 28 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. 29 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 returned to Sri Lanka. 30 In addition, the Committee notes that, in the State party’s assessment of the complainant’s asylum application, the State party’s authorities also considered the possible risk of ill-treatment of failed asylum seekers upon return to Sri Lanka, but did not accept that the authorities in Sri Lanka had been looking for the complainant in the recent past or were otherwise interested in him. The Committee is of the view that, in the present case, the State party’s authorities gave appropriate consideration to the complainant’s claim. 8.8 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, 31 as he has not adequately demonstrated the existence of substantial grounds for believing that his forcible removal to his country of origin would expose him to a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention. Although the complainant disagrees with the assessment of his accounts by the State party’s authorities, he has failed to demonstrate that the decision to refuse him a protection visa was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 9. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, is of the view that the complainant’s removal to Sri Lanka by the State party did not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Regarding the State party’s lack of compliance with the Committee’s request of 24 June 2014 for interim measures for the complainant not to be deported, and his forcible removal to Sri Lanka on 25 June 2014, the Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, decides that the facts before it constitute a violation by the State party of article 22 of the Convention due to a lack of cooperation with the Committee in good faith, which prevented the Committee from considering the present communication effectively.32 10. Pursuant to rule 118 (5) of its rules of procedure, the Committee urges the State party to take steps to prevent similar violations of article 22 in the future and to ensure that, in cases where the Committee has requested interim measures, the complainants are not deported until the Committee has decided on the merits. 27 28 29 30 31 32 10 Freedom from Torture, Tainted Peace: Torture in Sri Lanka since May 2009 (August 2015), available from www.freedomfromtorture.org/sites/default/files/documents/sl_report_a4_-_final-f-b-web.pdf. See communication No. 628/2014, J.N. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 13 May 2016, para. 7.9. See, for example, communication No. 426/2010, R.D. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 8 November 2013, para. 9.2. See, for example, communications No. 61/1996, X, Y and Z v. Sweden, Views adopted on 6 May 1998, para. 11.2; No. 435/2010, G.B.M. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 14 November 2012, para. 7.7; or No. 458/2011, X v. Denmark, decision adopted on 28 November 2014, para. 9.5. See communication No. 429/2010, Sivagnanaratnam v. Denmark, decision adopted on 11 November 2013, paras. 10.5 and 10.6. See communication No. 428/2010, Kalinichenko v. Morocco, decision adopted on 25 November 2011, para. 16. See also Tursunov v. Kazakhstan, para. 10; and D.I.S. v. Hungary, para. 11.