CCPR/C/106/D/1912/2009 accordingly finds the author’s claims under both articles 7 and 9 admissible and proceeds to their consideration on the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it, as provided for under article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee considers it necessary to bear in mind the State party’s obligation under article 2 of the Covenant to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant, including in the application of its processes for expulsion of non-citizens. 7.3 The Committee notes the author’s claim that as an ethnic Tamil from the North of Sri Lanka, who has in the past been detained on several occasions and tortured by the Sri Lankan army, as evidenced by the scars he retained on his chest, he faces a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant if returned. The Committee notes the State party’s contention that the author’s applications before domestic authorities were essentially rejected on the grounds that the author lacked credibility, having noted inconsistencies in his statements and the lack of evidence in support of his allegations. The Committee further notes the State party’s argument, as evidenced by the PRRA officer at national level, that even accepting that the author had been arrested in 1987 and 1989, he had not established that he had had problems with either the army or the LTTE since then; and therefore, there was insufficient proof that the author faced a real risk for his life or security if returned to Sri Lanka. The Committee finally notes the State party’s argument that the author does not fit the profile of the young Tamil male who would be subject to persecution, and that his situation is no different from that of all the Tamils living in Sri Lanka. 7.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 31 in which it refers to the obligation of States parties not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory where there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a risk of irreparable harm 13 . The Committee also recalls that, generally speaking, it is for the organs of States parties to the Covenant to review or evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether such risk exists. 14 7.5 In the circumstances of this case, the Committee finds that insufficient weight was given to the author’s allegations of a real risk of being tortured if deported to his country of origin, given the high prevalence of torture in Sri Lanka. 15 The Committee notes that the inconsistencies highlighted by the State party were not directly related to his claim of having been tortured and cannot in themselves vitiate the whole credibility of the author’s allegations with regard to his past torture and harassment by both the army and the LTTE. Contrary to the State party’s assumption that the author did not support his claim of having been tortured by the army after 1989, the author pointed to scars on his chest as evidence of recent torture. This physical evidence should have been enough for the State party authorities to request an independent expertise on the possible causes for those scars and their age. 13 14 15 14 See General Comment No. 31[80] on the Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, para. 12. See communication No. 1763/2008, Pillai et al. v. Canada, Views adopted on 25 March 2011, para. 11.4; see also communication No. 1819/2008, A.A. v. Canada, Decision on admissibility adopted on 31 October 2011, para. 7.8. See communication No. 1763/2008 (footnote 14 above).