CAT/C/61/D/725/2016 by non-governmental organizations31 concerning the treatment of individuals returned to Sri Lanka by the Sri Lankan authorities.32 However, the Committee recalls that the occurrence of human rights violations in one’s country of origin is not sufficient in itself to conclude that a complainant runs a personal risk of torture. 33 The Committee also recalls that, although past events may be of relevance, the principle question before the Committee is whether the complainant currently runs a risk of torture if returned to Sri Lanka. 34 In the present case, the complainant has not demonstrated a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture if returned to Sri Lanka, owing to the numerous inconsistencies and frequent adjustment of his testimony affecting his credibility. In addition, the Committee notes that, in its assessment of the complainant’s asylum application, the State party’s authorities also considered the possible risk of ill-treatment of failed asylum seekers upon return to Sri Lanka and is of the view that, in the present case, the State party’s authorities gave appropriate consideration to the complainant’s claim. 7.9 On the basis of all the information submitted by the complainant and the State party, including on the general situation of human rights in Sri Lanka, the Committee considers that, in the present case, the complainant has not discharged the burden of proof 35 as he has not adequately demonstrated the existence of substantial grounds for believing that his forcible removal to his country of origin would expose him to a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention. Although the complainant disagrees with the assessment of his accounts by the State party’s authorities, he has failed to demonstrate that the decision to refuse him a protection visa was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 8. In the light of the above, the Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the complainant’s removal to Sri Lanka by the State party would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 31 32 33 34 35 14 See Freedom from Torture, “Tainted Peace: Torture in Sri Lanka since May 2009” (London, August 2015). See communication No. 628/2014, J.N. v. Denmark, decision of 13 May 2016, para. 7.9. See, for example, communication No. 426/2010, R.D. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 8 November 2013, para. 9.2. See, for example, communications No. 61/1996, X.Y. and Z. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 6 May 1998, para. 11.2; No. 435/2010, G.B.M. v. Sweden, decision of 14 November 2012, para. 7.7; or No. 458/2011, X. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 28 November 2014, para. 9.5. See communication No. 429/2010, Sivagnanaratnam v. Denmark, decision adopted on 11 November 2013, paras. 10.5 and 10.6.