Issues and proceedings before the Committee
6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the
Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under
article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is
required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the
same matter has not been and is not being examined under another
procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee also
notes that all domestic remedies have been exhausted, and that all other
admissibility requirements have been met. Accordingly, the Committee
considers the communication admissible. Since both the State party and the
author have provided observations on the merits of the communication, the
Committee proceeds with the consideration of those merits.
6.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the expulsion of the authors
to Sri Lanka would violate the State party's obligation under article 3 of the
Convention not to expel or return 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.
6.3 The Committee must decide, pursuant to article 3, paragraph 1, whether
there are substantial grounds for believing that the authors would be in
danger of being subjected to torture if returned to Sri Lanka. In reaching this
decision, it must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to
article 3, paragraph 2, including the existence of a consistent pattern of
gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. The aim of the
determination, however, is to establish whether the individuals concerned
would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture. The existence of a
consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in the
country does not by itself constitute a sufficient ground for determining that
a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon
returning to that country; there must be other grounds indicating that he or
she would be personally at risk. Similarly, the absence of a consistent
pattern of gross violations of human rights does not mean that a person
cannot be in danger of torture in his or her specific circumstances.
6.4 The Committee recalls its general comment on the implementation of
article 3, which reads:
"Bearing in mind that the State party and the Committee are
obliged to assess whether there are substantial grounds for
believing that the author would be in danger of being subjected
to torture were he/she to be expelled, returned or extradited,
the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond
mere theory or suspicion. However, the risk does not have to