CAT/C/71/D/834/2017 4.17 Regarding the complainant’s attendance at the Heroes’ Days celebration in the Netherlands, organized by LTTE, the State party believes that the complainant did not plausibly demonstrate that the Sri Lankan authorities were aware of this, but even if they were aware, those activities would be too marginal for him to be considered to be an activist. 4.18 The State party concludes that it has not been plausibly established that the complainant would be subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention upon his return to Sri Lanka. Therefore, the communication is unfounded in its entirety and the decision to return the complainant to Sri Lanka does not breach article 3 of the Convention. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 5.1 On 31 January 2019, the complainant commented on the State party’s observations and maintained that the Netherlands would violate article 3 of the Convention if it returned him to Sri Lanka. 5.2 The complainant reiterates his arguments that he was arrested by Sri Lankan authorities on 16 November 2010 and accused of transporting insurgents to let them escape the country. He maintained that his relatives were detained and maltreated by the authorities owing to his activities. 5.3 The complainant did not bring any new information and referred to numerous reports on the human rights situation in Sri Lanka, including its bad prison conditions and degrading treatment of detainees. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.2 The Committee recalls that in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any complaint unless it has ascertained that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted. The Committee notes that, in the present case, the State party has not challenged the admissibility of the complaint on this ground. 6.3 As the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 7.2 In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the return of the complainant to Sri Lanka would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return (“refouler”) a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 7.3 The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to Sri Lanka. In assessing that risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3 (2) of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. The Committee remains seriously concerned about the continued and consistent allegations of widespread use of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment perpetrated by Sri Lankan authorities, such as the military and the police, in many parts of the country since the conflict 7