CAT/C/59/D/633/2014 he will be charged and held on remand for offences in relation to his illegal departure; (b) he will suffer cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment at the hands of Sri Lankan authorities because he is an ethnic Tamil and his ethnicity will result in him being imputed to be a political supporter of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam; (c) his father and his aunt have been subjected to cruel treatment because of suspicions about his actions; (d) on unspecified dates around 2007, the Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal threatened to kill his wife and children; (e) Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal officers forced his wife out of the family home, began using the house as an office and tried to extort money from her; and (f) and the local police failed to provide his wife with protection, even though she made a complaint. The complainant was also afraid of being detained and tortured because of suspicion that he had links with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, after he was briefly detained by the police, questioned and accused of transporting a member of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in his rickshaw. The complainant also feared returning to Sri Lanka because in 1987 he had been abducted by the Tamil Eelam Liberation Organization, detained at one of the organization’s camps, forced to work as a cook in the camp kitchen and had escaped from that camp. 7.6 The Committee also notes the State party’s assertions that, in the present case: (a) the complainant has not provided any credible evidence in his submissions to the Committee; (b) he has failed to substantiate that there was a foreseeable, real and personal risk that he would be subjected to torture by the Sri Lankan authorities if he were to be returned to his country of origin; (c) his claims have been thoroughly considered by a number of domestic decision makers, including RRT, and subject to judicial review by the Federal Court of Australia; and (d) each body specifically considered the claims and determined that they were not credible. With reference to the RRT decision and the complainant’s ministerial intervention assessment, the State party argues that failed asylum seekers and Tamils are not specifically targeted for adverse attention from the Sri Lankan authorities at the time of entry and that there was no evidence to support a finding that the complainant had issues that would bring him additional scrutiny or attention on return, or delay his release after security checks on return to Sri Lanka. 7.7 In this context, the Committee refers to its consideration in 2016 of the fifth periodic report of Sri Lanka (see CAT/C/SR.1472), during which it reiterated serious concern about reports suggesting that abductions, torture and ill-treatment perpetrated by State security forces in Sri Lanka, including the police, had continued in many parts of the country after the conflict with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam had ended in May 2009 (see CAT/C/LKA/CO/3-4, para. 6). The Committee was also concerned at reprisals against victims and witnesses of acts of torture, and at abductions and acts of torture in unacknowledged detention facilities, and enquired whether a prompt, impartial and effective investigation of any such acts had been undertaken (see CAT/C/SR.1472, paras. 36 and 42). 7.8 In the present case, the Committee notes, however, that the information submitted by the complainant regarding the events in Sri Lanka that led to his departure from the country were thoroughly evaluated by the State party’s authorities, which found it insufficient to show that he was in need of protection. The Committee also notes that the complainant has not presented adequate credible evidence in support of his claims that the Sri Lankan authorities were interested in him before or after his departure from the country in relation to his past involvement with the Tamil Eelam Liberation Organization. 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. 12