CAT/C/61/D/725/2016 harmed by the police or Criminal Investigation Department because of his departure. The Committee observes that the complainant had not been recruited by the Tamil Tigers and there is no documentary evidence to substantiate the alleged involvement of his family with the Tamil Tigers. The Committee observes that the complainant’s wife, parents, sisters, brother and sister-in-law continue to reside in Sri Lanka. 7.6 As to the new allegations of sexual assault, the Committee notes the complainant’s claim that he first disclosed his experience of torture, including sexual torture, at the Refugee Review Tribunal hearing, as reported in the Tribunal decision of 1 August 2013. However, the Committee observes that the complainant’s allegations in this regard are not supported by the above-mentioned decision, which is part of the file. The Committee observes that the complainant claimed that in 2011 he had been questioned and harassed by the Criminal Investigation Department or police in relation to the damage at the university; however, it appears he did not disclose any physical and/or sexual torture experience at that stage of the domestic proceedings. Irrespective of that, the Committee observes that the complainant’s credibility could not be assessed solely on the basis of the significant delay between him lodging his protection visa application and raising the claim of sexual torture. It also observes that complete accuracy is seldom to be expected by victims of torture 29 and that, in the present case, the complainant’s psychological state and suffering of posttraumatic stress disorder and depression are well documented medically. 7.7 The Committee takes note of the evidence from a psychiatrist based on a 90-minute assessment that took place on 8 July 2015 and was provided in the complainant’s second request for ministerial intervention of 2 August 2015, in order to support the complainant’s new claims that: (a) the Tamil Tigers tried to forcibly recruit him when his brother deserted, and his parents paid a large amount of money to prevent this; (b) that two of his paternal uncles were forcibly recruited to the Tamil Tigers, one of whom is missing and the other is disabled and in hiding, while a third was killed during the civil war; and (c) that the family burned all evidence of links to the Tamil Tigers and that he had experienced sexual assault by male officers of the police or Criminal Investigation Department. The Committee notes the State party’s assertion that its competent authorities evaluated thoroughly all the evidence presented by the complainant and found it to be of limited probative value owing to its content and timing. The Committee observes that the State party authorities recognized and considered the psychiatrist specialist report of 15 July 2015 and therefore took into account and assessed the complainant’s new claim of sexual assault. The Committee notes that the State party’s authorities did not accept as a fact that the complainant had been subjected to sexual torture by the Criminal Investigation Department officers. The Committee also takes note that the State party’s authorities acknowledged that the complainant had been through hardship during the civil war and the traumatic experiences have made an impact on his mental health. However, the Committee notes that the authorities found no information to indicate he would be denied access to mental health services in Sri Lanka and assessed his claim of sexual abuse to be not credible owing to the frequency of inconsistencies coupled with frequent adjustment of his testimony whenever adverse information was put to him. 7.8 Regarding the complainant’s general claim that he risks being subjected to torture upon return to Sri Lanka owing to his status as a Tamil male with real or perceived links with the Tamil Tigers, and as a failed asylum seeker returning from overseas, the Committee agrees that Sri Lankans of Tamil ethnicity with a real or perceived prior personal or familial connection to the Tamil Tigers facing forcible return to Sri Lanka may face a risk of torture. In that 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 ill-treatment perpetrated by State security forces in Sri Lanka, including military and police, 30 which had continued in many parts of the country after the conflict with the Tamil Tigers ended in May 2009, and to credible reports 29 30 See communication No. 21/1995, Alan v. Switzerland, decision of 8 May 1996, para. 11.3. See CAT/C/LKA/CO/5, paras. 9-12. 13