CAT/C/60/D/716/2015 Advance unedited version 7.3 The State party maintains that the complaint should be declared inadmissible, pursuant to rule 113 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure, as it is manifestly unfounded. The Committee, however, observes that the complainant has sufficiently detailed the facts and the basis of his claims of violations of the Convention and thus considers that the complaint has been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility. As the Committee finds no obstacles to admissibility, it declares the present communication admissible and proceeds to its examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 In accordance with 22 (4) of the Convention, the Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties concerned. 8.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the forced removal of the complainant to Sri Lanka would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to 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 would be 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. However, the Committee recalls that the aim of the evaluation 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 of a consistent pattern of flagrant violations of human rights does not mean that a person 14 might not be subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances. 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), 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 15 and personal risk. The Committee further recalls that, in accordance with its general comment No. 1, it gives considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned, 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, of free assessment of 16 the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case (para. 9). 8.5 The Committee notes the complainant’s claim that his forcible removal to Sri Lanka would amount to a violation of his rights under article 3 of the Convention as he would be exposed to a risk of being tortured by Sri Lankan officials or members of the Muslim community due to his Tamil ethnicity, his perceived links with the LTTE, his father’s role as a leader and custodian of a Hindu temple in his village, and his condition as a failed-asylum seeker who left Sri Lanka illegally. He also refers to procedural shortcomings in the proceedings 14 See, for example, communication No. 550/2013, ​S.K. and others v. Sweden, decision adopted on 8 May 2015, para. 7.3. See also ​A.R. v. Netherlands, para. 7.3. See, for example, communication No. 356/2008, ​N.S. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 6 May 2010, para. 7.3. 15 16 10