CAT/C/60/D/708/2015 Consideration of the merits 8.1 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. 8.2 In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the forcible removal 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. 8.3 In assessing this 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. However, the Committee recalls that the aim of such determination 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. 43 8.4 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.44 The Committee further recalls that in accordance with its general comment No. 1, it gives considerable weight to the findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned, while at the same time it is not bound by such findings and instead has the power, provided by article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, of free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case. 8.5 The Committee notes the complainant’s claim that his forcible removal to Sri Lanka would amount to a violation of his rights under article 3 of the Convention as he would be exposed to a risk of being subjected to indefinite detention and torture by the Sri Lankan authorities owing to his past involvement with LTTE. In that connection, the Committee notes the complainant’s submission that during 2001 and 2002 he was obliged to train and then worked with LTTE for approximately 18 months, plus a period of “punishment work”, and that in April 2004, he was taken to Joseph Camp, where he was tortured for 15 days in an attempt to get him to identify members of LTTE. The Committee also notes that the complainant is of Tamil ethnicity from Mullaitivu and that his elder brother was arrested on suspicion of being an LTTE member. 8.6 The Committee notes the State party’s arguments that the complainant’s claims have been thoroughly considered by the competent domestic authorities and that they consistently determined that the complainant lacked credibility and did not engage the State party’s non-refoulement obligations. In that connection, the Committee notes, inter alia, the State party’s arguments that in the refugee status assessment, the complainant claimed that in April 2009 he was in a refugee camp and was regularly interrogated and tortured by the Sri Lankan army, including being asked to identify LTTE members, but that he denied being a member of LTTE; and that during the 2015 international treaties obligation assessment interview, the complainant admitted that he had lied when he claimed that he had been detained and tortured in a camp from 2008 to 2010 and claimed instead that he had supported LTTE from 2000 to 2004 and that he had been tortured in Joseph Camp in 43 44 See, for example, 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; No. 344/2008, A.M.A. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 12 November 2010; and No. 550/2013, S.K. and others v. Sweden, decision adopted on 8 May 2015. See communication No. 203/2002, A.R. v. Netherlands, decision adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 7.3. 11