CAT/C/60/D/716/2015 Advance unedited version complainant was a supporter of the Tamil political party of the area. However, the Committee considers that this document itself is not sufficient to establish that the complainant was or is wanted by the Sri Lanka authorities due to his alleged association or perceived links to the LTTE. Furthermore, the Committee observers that although the complainant alleges to have been “rounded up” and questioned by the Sri Lanka authorities regarding LTTE stockpiling of munitions between 2010-2011, he was not kept in detention or otherwise subjected to ill-treatment, and his statements do not support the conclusion that the authorities suspected him of having links with the LTTE or similar groups. Likewise the complainant has not provided evidence, which indicates that his relatives were subjected to persecution due to his alleged connection with the LTTE. 8.10 Finally, the Committee observes that the complainant’s application for protection visa was examined by the DIC and the RRT; that he was provided with legal representation under the IAAAS scheme; that subsequently he appealed for review of the RRT’s decision to the FCCA and the FCA; and that while not legally represented at the FCCA hearings, he received advice in preparing his application, and was legally represented at subsequent proceedings before the FCA. The complainant argues that the legal assistance provided by the State party was deficient. However, his allegations in this respect are very general and do not show that there was a lack of due diligence in providing such assistance so as to significantly affect the outcome his application for protection visa. Nor has he explained in which manner his appearance at the hearing before the FCCA without legal representation had a negative impact on the final examination of his case considering that his applications for leave to appeal to the FCCA and FCA were granted and both courts examined whether the RRT had incurred in a legal error; and that he had legal representation in the other stages/instances of the proceedings. 9. In view of the foregoing, the Committee considers that the evidence and circumstances invoked by the complainant do not show sufficient grounds for believing that he would run a real, foreseeable, personal and present risk of being subjected to torture in case of his removal to Sri Lanka. The Committee thus considers that the material on the file does not enable it to conclude that the return of the complainant would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 10. The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, concludes that the complainant’s removal to Sri Lanka by the State party would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 12