CAT/C/62/D/696/2015 6.5 On 21 April 2015, the complainant applied to The Hague District Court for review of the decision. The application for review was heard in open court on 12 May 2015. On 18 May 2015, the court declared the application for review unfounded. 6.6 On 27 May 2015, the complainant lodged an appeal with the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State. By judgment of 16 June 2015, the Council of State declared the appeal inadmissible. 6.7 Since the conclusion of these proceedings the complainant has not submitted an application for a residence permit in the Netherlands. 6.8 The State party notes that due care was exercised throughout the asylum proceedings in respect of the complainant and due account was taken of article 3 of the Convention. The complainant was interviewed several times during the asylum proceedings and questioned on the facts and circumstances of his departure from Sri Lanka and on the reasons why he believed he would be treated contrary to article 3 of the Convention if he returned to Sri Lanka. 6.9 The State party also notes that, although the human rights situation in Sri Lanka gives cause for concern, in view of information from various public sources, 4 the State party considers that there is no reason to conclude that expulsion to Sri Lanka would, in itself, involve a risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention. There is no reason to assume that every Tamil, whether or not they have had links in the past with LTTE, will be subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention upon returning to Sri Lanka. Various decisions 5 by the Committee indicate that it, too, remains seriously concerned about continued and consistent allegations of widespread use of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment perpetrated by State actors — both the military and the police — which have continued in many parts of Sri Lanka since the conflict ended in May 2009. However, the Committee has no reason to hold that the general situation is such that a real and foreseeable risk of being subjected to torture in Sri Lanka may be presumed. Even if it were probable that the complainant had been subjected to torture, the question remains whether there is a substantial risk of persecution for the complainant. Alleged torture in the past cannot automatically constitute risk of torture today, it is only one element in determining the present risk of torture for the complainant. Other relevant factors include the lapse of time, 6 the situation in the country of origin 7 and the complainant’s personal circumstances. 8 The complainant has an obligation to provide sufficient evidence substantiating that such a risk is present and personal. 6.10 The jurisprudence of the European Court on Human Rights 9 indicates that the abovementioned risks can be taken into account when assessing asylum applications by Sri Lankan Tamils. The Court has also indicated that, since the conflict in Sri Lanka has ended, the level of adverse interest in failed Tamil asylum seekers returning to the country has decreased.10 There is a risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights only if the alien can demonstrate that the authorities are interested in him or her specifically, for example because the alien committed a criminal offence or was an influential member of LTTE. The Court ruled that although States parties have a duty to 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Netherlands, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Country report on Sri Lanka (October 2014); United States of America, Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2015: Sri Lanka (13 April 2016); Amnesty International, Report 2015/16: The State of the World’s Human Rights, (23 February 2016). See Sathurusinghe Dewage v. Australia (CAT/C/51/D/387/2009); and Sivagnanaratnam v. Denmark (CAT/C/51/D/429/2010). See Y. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/50/D/431/2010); S.S.S. v. Canada (CAT/C/35/D/245/2004); T.A. v. Sweden (CAT/C/39/D/303/2006); and S.S. v. the Netherlands (CAT/C/30/D/191/2001). See X. v. Denmark (CAT/C/53/D/458/2011); and Bakatu-Bia v. Sweden (CAT/C/46/D/379/2009). See K.K. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/31/D/186/2001); and Uttam Mondal v. Sweden (CAT/C/46/D/338/2008). See European Court of Human Rights, NA. v. the United Kingdom (application No. 25904/07), judgment of 17 July 2008; J.K. v. France (application No. 7466/10), decision of 7 April 2015; and T.T. v. France (application No. 8686/13), decision of 7 April 2015. Ibid., T.T. v. France; J.K. v. France; and N. and others v. the United Kingdom (application No. 16458/12), decision of 15 April 2014. 5