CAT/C/67/D/723/2015 7.6 The Committee recalls that it must ascertain whether the complainant would currently be at risk of being subjected to torture if he were returned to Sri Lanka. The Committee notes that, even though the State party has acknowledged that complete accuracy is seldom to be expected by victims of torture, the domestic authorities found the complainant’s story relating to the grease man incident, which is the most central element of his claim and the incident that was said to have eventually triggered his departure from Sri Lanka, to be non-credible, because of inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements on the matter. In addition, the authorities could not accept as a fact that the complainant had been threatened against continuing fishing by a group of Sinhalese fishermen. 7.7 The Committee further notes that some of the complainant’s claims and pieces of corroborating evidence were submitted only to the Committee, after his refugee claim had been rejected at the domestic level. The Committee notes, however, that the complainant had ample opportunity to provide supporting evidence and further details of his claims in the course of domestic processes. Nonetheless, he failed to raise at an earlier stage his claims relating to witnessing war crimes and the subsequent risks he might face on that ground. The Committee notes that the complainant himself indicated that it was not until 2010 that the war crime allegations became a serious matter for the Government of Sri Lanka. However, the domestic proceedings were ongoing from February 2013 until August 2015, and it is implausible that the complainant would not have come forward with his alleged fear during that period. Furthermore, there is minimal information or evidence supporting the complainant’s claim in that regard. As to the complainant’s claim that he was assaulted between 2001 and 2012, the Committee notes that he indeed mentioned before the domestic courts that he had been subjected to ill-treatment on a weekly basis. However, those allegations clearly referred only to a period of three months when the complainant was staying in Mullaitivu for work. The Committee notes that the complainant failed to provide any details of further incidents of ill-treatment. The Committee observes that no reasonable explanation was given by the complainant as to why he failed to present any evidence to the domestic courts, similar to the letter submitted only to the Committee, in support of his statement that the authorities of Sri Lanka were looking for him in his house on several occasions in 2012 as a result of the grease man incident. With regard to the changes to the Migration Act that have been challenged by the complainant, the Committee notes that the complainant has failed to show that he is personally affected by the impugned provisions. 7.8 Regarding the complainant’s claim that he risks being subjected to torture upon return to Sri Lanka owing to his status as a Tamil with real or perceived links with the Tamil Tigers and as a failed asylum seeker, the Committee agrees that Sri Lankans of Tamil ethnicity with a real or perceived prior personal or familial connection to the Tamil Tigers and facing forcible return to Sri Lanka may face a risk of torture. In this connection, the Committee notes the current human rights situation in Sri Lanka and refers to its concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of Sri Lanka, in which it expressed concern, inter alia, about reports regarding the persistence of abductions, torture and illtreatment perpetrated by State security forces in Sri Lanka, including the military and the police,9 which had continued in many parts of the country after the conflict with the Tamil Tigers ended in May 2009. It also refers to credible reports by non-governmental organizations10 concerning the treatment of individuals returned to Sri Lanka by the authorities of Sri Lanka.11 However, the Committee recalls that the occurrence of human rights violations in a complainant’s country of origin is not sufficient in itself to conclude that he or she runs a personal risk of torture on return to that country. 12 The Committee also recalls that, although past events may be of relevance, the principal question before the Committee is whether the complainant currently runs a risk of torture if returned to Sri 9 10 11 12 CAT/C/LKA/CO/5, paras. 9–12. Freedom from Torture, Tainted Peace: Torture in Sri Lanka since May 2009 (London, 2015); Human Rights Watch, World Report 2019 (New York, 2019). J.N. v. Denmark (CAT/C/57/D/628/2014), para. 7.9. See, for example, R.D. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/51/D/426/2010), para. 9.2. 9