CAT/C/58/D/608/2014 foreseeable, real and personal risk. 8 Although, under the terms of its general comment No. 1, the Committee is free to assess the facts on the basis of the full set of circumstances in every case, considerable weight is given to the findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned (para. 9).9 7.5 The Committee notes the complainant’s claims that his forcible removal to Sri Lanka would amount to a violation of article 3 of the Convention as he would be exposed to a risk of torture by the Sri Lankan authorities due to his alleged previous connection with LTTE in 2003-2004 and his status as a failed asylum seeker; that he would also face a risk of severe harm by TMVP because of his refusal to lend them his truck in March 2012; and that although he clarified the inconsistences of his accounts and explained why the information concerning his links with LTTE was not submitted to the State party’s authorities earlier in the proceedings, the Refugee Review Tribunal questioned his credibility and arbitrarily dismissed his request for a protection visa. 7.6 The Committee also notes the State party’s arguments that its authorities reviewed all the allegations and evidence submitted to them by the complainant and determined that his claims were not credible; that the decisions reached by its authorities relied on reports that indicate that not all young Tamil males from northern Sri Lanka face a real and personal risk of persecution by the Sri Lankan authorities, but only those who are suspected of having links to LTTE; and that the complainant has not demonstrated that he is a person suspected of having significant and concrete links with LTTE. The State party maintains that available country information indicates that militia and armed groups associated with TMVP in eastern Sri Lanka target, mainly through extortion, individuals who they perceive to be their opponents; and that the complainant has failed to show that he would be perceived as a political opponent by TMVP. 7.7 The Committee recalls that the occurrence of a consistent pattern of gross human rights violations in a complainant’s country of origin is not sufficient in itself for it to be concluded that he or she runs a personal risk of torture there.10 In that context, the Committee refers to its concluding observations following its 2011 examination of the combined third and fourth periodic reports of Sri Lanka (CAT/C/LKA/CO/3-4), in which it expressed concern at reports suggesting that torture and ill-treatment perpetrated by State actors, both the military and the police, had continued in many parts of the country after the conflict with LTTE had ended in May 2009 (para. 6). The Committee also refers to its concluding observations following its 2013 examination of the fifth periodic report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (CAT/C/GBR/CO/5), in which the Committee noted evidence that some Sri Lankan Tamils had been victims of torture and illtreatment following their forced or voluntary removal from that State party to Sri Lanka (para. 20). The Committee further refers to the preliminary observations and recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment following the official joint visit to Sri Lanka with the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, which noted that “torture is a common practice” and that the “current legal framework and the lack of reform within the structures of the armed forces, police, Attorney-General’s Office and judiciary perpetuate 8 9 10 See, for example, communications No. 203/2002, A.R. v. Netherlands, Views adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 7.3; No. 285/2006. A.A. et al. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 10 November 2008, para. 7.6; No. 322/2007, Njamba and Balikosa v. Sweden, decision adopted on 14 May 2010, para. 9.4; No. 343/2008, Kalonzo v. Canada, decision adopted on 18 May 2012, para. 9.3; and No. 414/2010, N.T.W. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 16 May 2012, para. 7.3. See, inter alia, communication No. 356/2008, N.S. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 6 May 2010. See, for example, communications No. 426/2010, R.D. v. Switzerland, decision of 8 November 2013, para. 9.2; and No. 591/2014, K. v. Australia, decision of 25 November 2015, para. 10.11. 9