CAT/C/51/D/387/2009 punish them for supporting their political opponents. A discussion with senior JSS representatives confirmed that the wounds noted on the complainant’s body at the time were the result of an assault with a cable and other forms of “humiliation”, aimed at forcing him to worship the President. The complainant’s complaint was being investigated by the UNP Political Revenge Committee, so far without any known result. The ERC report further states that there is an additional risk for the complainant, linked to his status as failed asylum seeker who could be suspected of having links with the LTTE. Again, the State party did not offer any persuasive arguments concerning the issues raised by the complainant nor, especially, on the allegations submitted in the above-mentioned reports. 10.9 Moreover, the Committee considered the State party’s argument that the author’s claim related to non-State actors and therefore falls outside the scope of article 3 of the Convention.26 However, the Committee recalls that it has, in its jurisprudence and in general comment No. 2, addressed risk of torture by non-State actors and failure on the part of a State party to exercise due diligence to intervene and stop the abuses that were impermissible under the Convention.27 In the present communication, the Committee took into account all the factors involved, well beyond a mere risk of torture at the hands of a non-government entity. The Committee assessed reports of continued and consistent allegations of widespread use of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in Sri Lanka,28 as well as reports concerning mistreatment of failed asylum seekers who have profiles similar to the author’s,29 and considered that, in addition to torture by the LTTE — signs of which were corroborated by medical reports —, the complainant was subjected to constant harassment and threats, including death threats, by government authorities and that this mistreatment intensified as he made further complaints. 10.10 In the light of the foregoing and on the basis of all the information before it, the Committee against Torture concludes that there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture by Government officials if returned to Sri Lanka. The Committee therefore concludes that the removal of the complainant to Sri Lanka would constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 11. The Committee is of the view that the State party has an obligation to refrain from forcibly returning the author to Sri Lanka or to any other country where he runs a real risk of being expelled or returned to Sri Lanka. Pursuant to rule 118, paragraph 5, of its rules of procedure, the Committee invites the State party to inform it, within 90 days from the date of the transmittal of this decision, of the steps it has taken response to the present decision. [Adopted in English, French and Spanish, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic, Chinese and Russian as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.] 26 27 28 29 See, inter alia, Committee against Torture, communications No. 177/2001, H.M.H.I. v. Australia, decision adopted on 1 May 2002, para. 6.4; No. 218/2002, Chorlango v. Sweden, decision adopted on 22 November 2004, para. 5.2. See Committee against Torture, communications No. 379/2009, Bakatu-Bia v. Sweden, decision adopted on 3 June 2011, para. 10.6; No. 322/2007, Njamba and Balikosa v. Sweden, decsion adopted on 14 May 2010, para. 9.5; also general comment No. 2 (2008), para. 18. See CAT/C/LKA/CO/3-4, para. 6. See CAT/C/GBR/CO/5, para. 20. 17