CAT/C/59/D/652/2015 the merits of the case, and that the complainant has sufficiently substantiated his claims for the purposes of admissibility. As the Committee finds no obstacles to admissibility, it declares the communication submitted under article 3 of the Convention admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 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. 9.2 In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the forced 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. 9.3 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. However, the Committee recalls that the 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. Conversely, the absence of a consistent pattern of flagrant violations of human rights does not mean that a person might not be subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances.8 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.9 Although, under the terms of its general comment No. 1, the Committee is free to assess the facts on the basis of the full set of circumstances in every case, considerable weight is given to the findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned (para. 9).10 9.5 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 detained and tortured by the Sri Lankan authorities owing to his condition as a Tamil person from the Eastern Province of Sri Lanka; his perceived links with LTTE, for which he was allegedly detained and tortured in the past; his incident with a member of Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pullikal; and his status as a failed asylum seeker. In particular, he claimed that while in detention between 1993 and 1994 in Sri Lanka, he was forced to sign a confession of involvement with LTTE, which he fears might be used against him again. 8 9 10 8 See, for example, communication No. 550/2013, S.K. and others v. Sweden, decision adopted on 8 May 2015, para. 7.3. See also A.R. v. Netherlands, para. 7.3. See, for example, communication No. 356/2008, N.S. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 6 May 2010, para. 7.3.