CAT/C/51/D/387/2009 10.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 125 in which it states that the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion, but the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable; it is enough that the danger is personal and present (paras. 6 and 7). In its jurisprudence, the Committee has determined that the risk of torture must be foreseeable, real and personal. The Committee recalls that under the terms of general comment No. 1, considerable weight will be given to findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned, but the Committee is not bound by such findings; rather it has the power, provided by article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, to freely assess the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case (para. 9). The Committee further recalls that the burden to present an arguable case is on the author of a communication (para. 5). 10.5 With respect to the risk that the complainant might be subjected to torture at the hands of government officials upon return to Sri Lanka, the Committee notes the complainant’s claim that he had been harassed and threatened at gunpoint in the past by Government officials because he was an active UNP trade unionist. The Committee takes particular note of the profile of the main alleged perpetrator, Mr. L.A., who, according to the complainant, harassed him about his political activities and held and threatened him at gunpoint. Mr. L.A. was also jailed for killing UNP members; he gave himself up to the police in August 2012, after he allegedly abducted and asaulted three people; and was susbequently re-elected to his position as Chairman of Yatawatta Pradeshiya Sbha in Matale District. The Committee further notes that Mr. L.A. reportedly stood as a United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) candidate in the local government elections held in March 2011. 10.6 The Committee considers that the risk alleged by the complainant is real, personal and foreseeable. The Committee takes particular note of the fact that the complainant was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and a major depressive disorder linked to trauma suffered in Sri Lanka. It also takes note of the report from the Edmund Rice Centre (ERC) confirming his well-founded fear of being tortured and persecuted by Sri Lankan officials upon return to Sri Lanka. The State party was unable to disprove the evidence submitted by the complainant. 10.7 The report of 8 February 2009 from a clinical psychologist of Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture Inc (Foundation House) states that the source of the complainant’s condition was the belief — which appeared genuinely held — that his life would be imperilled if he were repatriated, and fears for the well-being of his family. This conclusion was corroborated by four other medical reports that address the consistency of his mental illness with his past experiences. With regard to the physical marks of torture, the medical report of the NSW Refugee Health Service, dated 14 March 2011, confirms the existence of scars on the left side of his neck, right flank, over left pelvis and over the lumbar spine. While they were not recent scars, the doctor could not comment on their exact age or cause. The medical report dated 17 March 2011 confirms scars on the complainant’s lower back and abdomen, and indicates that those scars are consistent with the alleged trauma. 10.8 As for the report from the Edmund Rice Centre (ERC) submitted on 27 April 2012, it considers that the complainant’s account is credible and that he would face a very significant risk of torture at the hands of Government actors, including Mr. L.A. or persons affiliated with the Government through the trade union of the government party. The Chief Opposition Whip in the Sri Lankan Parliament (see para. 5.7 above) with whom the NGO team met stated that the Government is persistent in hunting down political opponents and that after an election, the party that comes to power harasses opposition supporters to 25 16 Committee against Torture, general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22 (refoulement and communications).