CAT/C/61/D/713/2015 aim of the evaluation is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would be returned. It follows that the existence of a pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute sufficient reason for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture on return to that country; additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. 4 9.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention, according to which the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. While the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable (para. 6), the Committee recalls that the burden of proof generally falls on the complainant, who must present an arguable case that he or she faces a foreseeable, real and personal risk. 5 Although, under the terms of general comment No. 1, the Committee must give considerable weight to the findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned, it is not bound by such findings and is free to assess the facts on the basis of the full set of circumstances in every case (para. 9). 6 9.5 In the present case, the complainant claims that he will be detained and tortured if returned to Sri Lanka as a failed asylum seeker who left the country illegally, and that he will face the risk of torture and possibly death from paramilitary groups who persecuted him before he left the country. The Committee takes note of the State party’s submission that: the complainant has failed to provide credible evidence and to substantiate that there is a foreseeable, real and personal risk that he would be subjected to torture by the authorities if returned to Sri Lanka; and his claims were thoroughly reviewed by the competent domestic authorities and courts, in accordance with domestic legislation and taking into account the current human rights situation in Sri Lanka. 9.6 The Committee notes the complainant’s claims that: he was harassed by the Sri Lanka Army on his way to/from school after the family had re-appropriated their house from the Army in 2001; both he and his mother were active supporters of the Tamil National Alliance; as a student, he was harassed and threatened by TMVP and EPDP regarding joining them; and there had been attempts to abduct him and his brother by unknown men who came to his family home in a white van. The Committee also notes the complainant’s claims that he will be detained and tortured at the airport as a failed asylum seeker who had left the country illegally. The Committee observes that: the harassment of the complainant by the Sri Lanka Army dates back to 2005-2006 and the complainant continued to attend school; the complainant continued living in his family home until he left the country in 2012. The submission presents general claims about threats by paramilitary groups while the complainant was studying at university. The Committee further notes that the complainant’s mother, a supporter of the Tamil National Alliance, continued to live in the same family home without any reported problems. His two brothers, one of whom was allegedly threatened, along with the complainant, by unknown men who had come to their house in a white van, stayed in the family home and continued their studies without any reported problems, after the complainant had left Sri Lanka. 9.7 Regarding the complainant’s claim that he risks being subjected to torture upon return to Sri Lanka owing to his status as a failed asylum seeker, the Committee, referring specifically to its concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of Sri Lanka, in which it expressed concern about, inter alia, reports regarding the persistence of abductions, torture and ill-treatment perpetrated by State security forces in Sri Lanka, including the military and the police, which had continued in many parts of the country after the conflict 4 5 6 See communications No. 282/2005, S.P.A. v. Canada, decision adopted on 7 November 2006; No 333/2007, T.I. v. Canada, decision adopted on 15 November 2010; and No 344/2008, A.M.A. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 12 November 2010. See also communication 203/2003, A.R. v. the Netherlands, decision adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 7.3. See, for example, communication No. 356/2008, N.S. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 6 May 2010, para. 7.3. 5