CAT/C/61/D/614/2014 7.4 There being no other obstacles to admissibility, the Committee finds the communication admissible and shall proceed to consider it on its merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 8.2 In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the removal of the complainant to Sri Lanka constituted a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or return (“refouler”) a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 8.3 The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant was personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to Sri Lanka. In assessing that risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3 (2) of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. In this context, the Committee refers to its consideration of the fifth periodic report of Sri Lanka, 20 during which it voiced serious concerns about reports suggesting that abductions, torture and illtreatment perpetrated by State security forces in Sri Lanka, including by the police, had continued in many parts of the country after the conflict with LTTE had ended in May 2009.21 The Committee also expressed concern regarding the reprisals against victims and witnesses of acts of torture and at the acts of abduction and of torture in unacknowledged detention facilities, and enquired whether a prompt, impartial and effective investigation of any such acts had been undertaken.22 However, the Committee recalls that the aim of the evaluation undertaken in the context of individual complaints is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would be returned. It follows that the existence of a pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute sufficient reason for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture on return to that country; additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. 23 8.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention, according to which the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. While the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable (para. 6), it must be personal and present. The Committee recalls that the burden of proof generally falls on the complainant, who must present an arguable case that he or she faces a foreseeable, real and personal risk. 24 The Committee also recalls that, as set forth in its general comment No. 1, it gives considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned (para. 9), 25 while at the same time it is not bound by such findings and instead has the power, provided by article 22 (4) of the Convention, to freely assess the facts on the basis of the full set of circumstances in every case. 20 21 22 23 24 25 8 See CAT/C/SR.1472 and 1475; and CAT/C/LKA/CO/5, paras. 9-12. See also CAT/C/LKA/CO/3-4, para. 6. See CAT/C/SR.1472, paras. 36 and 42; and CAT/C/SR.1475, paras. 10 and 27. See also CAT/C/LKA/CO/5, paras. 17 and 18. See communications No. 282/2005, S.P.A. v. Canada, decision adopted on 7 November 2006; No. 333/2007, T.I. v. Canada, decision adopted on 15 November 2010; and No. 344/2008, A.M.A. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 12 November 2010. See communications No. 298/2006, C.A.R.M. et al. v. Canada, decision adopted on 18 May 2007, para. 8.10; No. 256/2004, M.Z. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 12 May 2006, para. 9.3; No. 214/2002, M.A.K. v. Germany, decision adopted on 12 May 2004, para. 13.5; No. 150/1999, S.L. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 11 May 2011, para. 6.3; and No. 347/2008, N.B-M. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 14 November 2011, para. 9.9. See also the Committee’s general comment No. 1. See, for example, communication No. 356/2008, N.S. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 6 May 2010, para. 7.3.