CAT/C/60/D/648/2015 situation in Sri Lanka; and that the domestic authorities were not convinced that the complainant fell within the category of persons entitled to protection under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. 10.5 The Committee takes note of the court record extract provided by the complainant to substantiate the claim that he had been charged with terrorist activities and of the two letters which are provided to refute weaknesses in the court document and further corroborate his account. The Committee notes the State party’s assertion that its competent authorities thoroughly evaluated all of the evidence presented by the complainant and found it to be of limited probative value owing to its content and timing. 10.6 The Committee takes notes that no link to LTTE has ever been claimed by or successfully imputed to the complainant. In relation to his alleged detention by the Criminal Investigation Department, no information is given about the torture (method, perpetrators) he claims to have suffered. The Committee notes that, despite claiming to have been held on terrorism charges, the complainant was released on bail and no further information is furnished as to whether a trial ever took place, whether he was convicted in absentia and whether, in fact, the charges were dropped. The letter from the Registrar of the Colombo Magistrates Court provided to establish that the complainant was indeed the suspect named on the charge sheet extracted from the Court record, and which explains the misspelling, is issued by a different court, the Magistrates Court in Kalmunai, with no explanation as to how this information was verified, and contains only a stamp but no letterhead. In the absence of any further pertinent documentation or information, and having regard to the fact that the complainant was able to move back to Kalmunai without suffering any harm, the Committee considers that, even if the complainant was a suspect in the past, it appears that the authorities did not consider him a danger and allowed him to move freely about the country. Further, it is the case that his name does not appear in the original court document in Sinhalese and therefore there is nothing to suggest that he would be flagged upon reentry. As to his escape from the Karuna group camp, there is no evidence which would lead to the conclusion that members of this group are in pursuit of, or interested in, the complainant, nor is there information as to whether the group in question is still in existence. Moreover, the Committee notes that when the complainant was deported from Singapore to Sri Lanka, he was able to re-enter without a problem and was not arrested or harmed in any way. 10.7 Regarding the complainant’s general claim that he risks being subjected to torture upon return to Sri Lanka owing to his status as a failed asylum seeker, and while not underestimating the concerns that may legitimately be expressed with respect to the current human rights situation in Sri Lanka and with specific reference in this regard to its concluding observations on Sri Lanka’s fifth periodic report (CAT/C/LKA/CO/5), the Committee recalls that the occurrence of human rights violations in his or her country of origin is not sufficient in itself to conclude that a complainant runs a personal risk of torture. 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. 10.8 In the light of these considerations, read as a whole, the Committee concludes that the complainant has not adduced sufficient grounds for it to conclude that the complainant runs a real, foreseeable, personal and present risk of being subjected to torture upon return to Sri Lanka. Furthermore, the complainant has not demonstrated that the State party’s authorities failed to conduct a proper investigation into his allegations. 11. In the light of the foregoing, 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. 15