S.R. v. Canada

The complainant is S.R., a national of Sri Lanka, born in 1978. He claims that the State party would violate his rights under article 3 of the Convention if it removed him to Sri Lanka. The State party has made the declaration pursuant to article 22 (1) of the Convention, effective from 13 November 1989. The complainant is represented by counsel.

On 13 September 2019, the Committee, acting through its Special Rapporteur on new complaints and interim measures, decided not to issue a request for interim measures under rule 114 of the Committee’s rules of procedure. A renewed request for interim measures was denied on 24 March 2022.

The complainant is of Tamil ethnicity, and is from Polikandy, Jaffna District, Northern Province, Sri Lanka. He notes that he was arrested and detained twice in 2000. On the first occasion, he was detained for 15 days, and on the second occasion, for seven days by Sri Lankan authorities, allegedly upon suspicion of being linked to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The first detention occurred after the bombing of a road close to a farm on which he was working at the time. He was detained the second time as he was travelling to Colombo to obtain travel documents in order to travel to Qatar for work opportunities. The complainant claims that while he was detained by Sri Lankan authorities, he was subjected to torture and was interrogated about his alleged links to the LTTE. He states that he did not report these incidents to the police, and he was released without being charged with any offence. After these incidents, he decided to leave the country and he lived in Qatar between 2001 and 2011.

In 2011, the complainant moved back to Sri Lanka to get married. He and his wife moved to his wife’s hometown. He claims that while in Sri Lanka he was harassed by the authorities, but he was not detained. He left Sri Lanka again on 19 December 2014.

The complainant arrived in Canada on 14 February 2015. His asylum request was rejected by the Refugee Protection Division on 27 April 2015. It was accepted that the complainant might have been detained in 2000. However, the panel noted that such arrests were not uncommon during the years of conflict and the circumstances had changed after the cessation of hostilities in 2009. The Refugee Protection Division panel found his statements of the alleged harassment by the authorities upon his return to Sri Lanka in 2011 not to be credible due to inconsistencies in his statement. It further noted that the complainant had returned from Qatar in 2011 without encountering any problems upon arrival at the airport in Colombo, and it found that there was no evidence to suggest that he had been politically active in Sri Lanka or a member or supporter of the LTTE. It concluded that he had failed to substantiate that he would be at risk of persecution upon return to Sri Lanka. The decision was upheld by the Refugee Appeals Division on 5 August 2015. On 12 November 2015, the complainant’s application for leave to seek judicial review of the decision was rejected by the Federal Court.

The complainant’s application for a pre-removal risk assessment was rejected on 9 January 2019, as was his first application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds on 11 January 2019. The assessment officer noted that the risk cited by the complainant in his pre-removal risk assessment application were essentially the same as those already assessed by the Refugee Protection Division and upheld on appeal. It found that the complainant had not provided any objective documentary evidence to support his claims that he would be at risk of persecution if returned to Sri Lanka. The author claims that at the time of the pre-removal risk assessment decision, he had not yet gathered enough personal evidence of the danger he would be exposed to if returned to Sri Lanka, and his applications did not contain specific evidence linking him to the LTTE, but were based on the general human rights situation in Sri Lanka.

The complainant filed a new humanitarian and compassionate grounds application for permanent residence in Canada on 7 October 2019.³ He also requested an administrative stay of removal on the ground of this pending humanitarian and compassionate grounds application before the Canadian Border Service Agency on 17 October 2019. The removal officer refused this request on 21 October 2019, which was confirmed by the Federal Court on 29 October 2019. The complainant states that he submitted new evidence of the risk of ill-treatment he would be exposed to if returned to Sri Lanka, with his application consisting of letters from his family members, proof of affiliation of one of his cousins to the LTTE and his brother’s death certificate. The complainant claims that his brother died from a heart failure in 2011 after having been harassed by the authorities for the same reasons that the complainant was. He also claims that one of his other brothers had to flee to Europe to escape persecution in Sri Lanka.

3. The application was refused on 17 September 2020. ↩

The complainant claims that his deportation to Sri Lanka would expose him to a real risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention. He claims that the State party authorities did not properly assess the risk of ill-treatment he would face upon removal to Sri Lanka, and he claims that he would again be targeted by the authorities for his perceived LTTE connections. The complainant refers to several country reports and newspaper articles in support of his claim that he would risk treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention upon return to Sri Lanka.⁴

4. The complainant refers to: BBC, “Tamils ‘still tortured’ in Sri Lanka, says rights groups”, 7 January 2016; The Diplomat, “The repression of Sri Lanka’s Tamils continues”, 7 May 2016; United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Home Office, “Report of a home office fact-finding mission – Sri Lanka: treatment of Tamils and people who have a real or perceived association with the former Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)”, 23 July 2016; The Conversation, “Sri Lanka ten years after the war: the Tamil struggle for justice continues”, 31 May 2019; and Green Left, “Sri Lanka still not safe for Tamils”, 13 September 2019. ↩

The State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication on 18 December 2020. It submits that the complainant has not exhausted all domestic remedies as he failed to present initially to domestic decision makers his purportedly new allegations of risk. It also submits that his claims should be found to be inadmissible as being manifestly unfounded. Should the Committee find the communication to be admissible, the State party submits, in the alternative, that the communication is without merit.

The State party notes that the complainant’s communication is largely based on the same allegations and evidence that he relied on in the domestic proceedings in the State party and which were found not to be credible and without merit. It notes that on 16 April 2015, the Refugee Protection Division heard the complainant’s claim for protection. At the hearing, the complainant was represented by legal counsel, and he had the right to provide documentary evidence and oral testimony and to make oral and written submissions. He also had the opportunity to explain any ambiguities or inconsistencies in his evidence and respond to any questions that the Refugee Protection Division had with respect to his claim for protection. On 27 April 2015, the Refugee Protection Division rejected the complainant’s application for asylum as it found that he had contrived parts of his story to create his refugee claim. It also found inconsistencies between his oral testimony and the contents of his written narrative. The State party notes that the Refugee Protection Division assessed the complainant’s claims by following the 2010 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees eligibility guidelines for assessing the international protection needs of asylum-seekers from Sri Lanka. The Refugee Protection Division noted that at no time did the complainant provide any information to indicate that any of his activities were related to the LTTE, and it found, on a balance of probabilities, that he did not fit the profile of a person suspected of any links with the LTTE. Second, the Refugee Protection Division discussed the events in 2011, upon the complainant’s return to Sri Lanka, after he had lived in Qatar for 10 years. It found his statements not to be credible, as he had initially only stated that the army had sought him once in 2011, while later in the proceedings claiming that they had also once inquired about his whereabouts in 2014. The Refugee Protection Division concluded that if the complainant were to return to Sri Lanka, he would not face a serious possibility of persecution, and on a balance of probabilities, he would not face a risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger of torture. On 5 August 2015, the Refugee Appeals Division upheld the decision by the Refugee Protection Division. In its decision it noted that during the complainant’s first alleged arrest, he was arrested with other farm workers, and was later released without charges. Despite his first alleged arrest, it noted that he was able to travel to Colombo, and through all the military checkpoints common during the conflict period without incident, in order to obtain his visa for Qatar. It found that if the army suspected him of links to the LTTE, it would not have released him or allowed him to pass through the military checkpoints to travel to Colombo. As to the complainant’s alleged second arrest by the military, this time in Colombo, the Refugee Appeals Division noted that he provided a court document from the Colombo Chief Magistrate Court proceedings as to his arrest, which stated that he was released by the Court. The court document also stated he was arrested with nine other suspects as part of a general round up in Colombo. The Refugee Appeals Division noted that at no time did the court document state any link between the complainant and the LTTE, or that the alleged second arrest was in any way related to the alleged first arrest. As the complainant travelled to Colombo to obtain his Qatar work visa, the Refugee Appeals Division noted that if he had been suspected of having links to the LTTE, he would not have been able to use his passport to leave Sri Lanka for Qatar in 2001, nor to return without incident in 2011. The State party refers to the rejection of the complainant’s pre-removal risk assessment application and notes that the assessment officer made the same assessment as to the credibility of the complainant’s claims as the Refugee Protection Division and the Refugee Appeals Division.

The State party notes that the complainant’s first application for a residence permit on humanitarian and compassionate grounds was refused on 11 January 2019. The humanitarian and compassionate grounds officer noted, as to the undue hardship claim raised by the complainant, that the migration authorities had raised credibility concerns as to his account of events and had found that he did not fit the profiles set out in the 2010 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees eligibility guidelines. The officer also noted that the complainant had two brothers living in Sri Lanka, who were also from the Northern Province and of Tamil ethnicity. The officer found no evidence that the brothers in Sri Lanka faced hardship due to their ethnicity or for any other reason. The officer noted that in support of his application the complainant had cited the need to support his two sisters residing in Canada. The officer concluded that the complainant had not substantiated that his family in Canada was dependent on him or that his departure to Sri Lanka would cause them excessive hardship. On 25 June 2019, the Federal Court denied the complainant’s application for leave to appeal. On 17 September 2020, the complainant’s second humanitarian and compassionate grounds application was refused and the officer determined that the complainant’s factors were insufficient for him to be granted an exemption on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The State party notes that in his complaint to the Committee, the complainant referred to five documents that he states represent the current danger for Tamil individuals in Sri Lanka. It submits that he has had many opportunities to provide these five documents during the domestic processes and has offered no reasonable explanation as to why he failed to provide them during these processes. It submits that the provision of this evidence by the complainant to the Committee renders his communication inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

The State party further submits that the communication is inadmissible on the basis that it is manifestly unfounded. It argues that the complainant has not sufficiently substantiated, for the purposes of admissibility, any of his allegations that he faces a foreseeable, personal and real risk of harm in Sri Lanka such that his removal to that country would be a violation of article 3 of the Convention. It argues that he has not provided any evidence that he was tortured in the past. Further, he has not provided information to indicate that any of his activities were connected to the LTTE, or provided sufficient evidence of his allegation that he is a person suspected of certain links with the LTTE. It further submits that he has not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate his claim that Sri Lankan authorities would have any negative interest in him. It refers to the findings of the State party authorities in which they concluded that the complainant was not personally targeted on either occasion of the two alleged arrests but was arrested as part of a general round up. It further notes that the State party authorities found discrepancies in the complainant’s account of events, which did not support his claim that he had suspected links to the LTTE, and it notes that he was able to leave and return from Qatar without difficulty in 2001 and 2011. The State party argues that even if the complainant was given the benefit of the doubt and it was accepted that he had been detained and tortured in 2000, which the State party submits has not been demonstrated, this factor alone does not support a conclusion that he would be tortured in the future, considering the time that has elapsed.

The State party notes that in his communication the complainant submits letters from family members in support of his claim; a “hero’s certificate” concerning his cousin who died in the war, which the author claims is proof that his cousin was affiliated with the LTTE; and a death certificate concerning his brother. It notes these documents have already been considered by domestic decision makers. On 23 October 2019, when the complainant applied to the Federal Court to request a judicial stay of his removal order, he provided these documents as part of his judicial stay application. On 29 October 2019, the Federal Court considered his application and dismissed his motion for a stay of the removal order.

The State party notes the complainant’s claims that as he is suspected of having LTTE connections, he would meet a similar fate as his brother, who he claims was detained, tortured and died of a heart attack in 2011. It notes that in support of this claim, he provided a translated copy, dated 26 August 2016, of his brother’s original death certificate, dated 12 April 2012, which states that his brother died on 21 December 2011, at 32 years of age, due to heart failure caused by high blood pressure. It notes that this claim contradicts information the complainant provided in his Basis of Claim Form which he filed on 4 March 2015, in which he stated that said brother passed away in 2011 from a heart attack, without making any claim that his brother’s death was caused by the Government of Sri Lanka. In addition, the State party notes that the complainant underwent three different domestic processes, where he was represented by three different experienced lawyers, and during each of these three domestic processes, at no time did he discuss his brother, let alone the cause of his brother’s death. The State party further notes that at no time during the initial domestic proceedings did the complainant make any reference to his cousin’s LTTE links, nor produce the letters from family members he submitted in his 2019 stay of removal application, despite having had plenty of opportunities to do so during the previous domestic proceedings. It submits that the failure by the complainant to mention both his brother’s and cousin’s deaths, or his perceived LTTE connections, during successive domestic processes, and his failure to provide any documentation about his cousin’s alleged LTTE links should lead the Committee to question his credibility.

On 20 March 2022, the complainant submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. He maintains that the communication is admissible.

The complainant indicates that he filed a second pre-removal risk assessment application on 12 March 2022 and a motion for a stay of removal of the deportation order against him before the Federal Court on 16 March 2022. The complainant notes that he was denied the opportunity to plead the stay of deportation as the Court had previously issued a decision on his case on 29 October 2019. He states that he now has obtained new evidence pertaining to his claims. He notes that in March 2020, the Terrorism Investigation Division of the Sri Lankan Police left a notice at his mother-in-law’s home summoning him to appear at a police station. He further notes that on 15 July 2021, his brother was granted refugee status in France after having been arrested in Sri Lanka for having participated in demonstrations against enforced disappearances in Sri Lanka. He also claims that his brother’s problems in Sri Lanka were connected to the Sri Lankan authorities’ inquiries as to the complainant’s whereabouts. He claims that these facts substantiate his claim that he would be at risk of detention and ill-treatment if removed to Sri Lanka. He reiterates his claims that due to his perceived LTTE links he would be at risk of persecution in Sri Lanka. He notes that in rejecting a request for deferral of removal filed by him on 12 March 2022, the Border Service Agency noted that the summons by the Terrorism Investigation Division did not look official. The complainant refutes this assertion.

On 2 June 2022, the State party submitted further observations on the admissibility and merits of the complaint. It maintains that the complaint should be found inadmissible as manifestly unfounded, and it provides information on the further domestic proceedings in the State party. It notes that on 10 March 2022, after having been detained in immigration detention, the complainant filed for a second pre-removal risk assessment. He again claimed that he would be subjected to a substantial risk of torture in Sri Lanka. The application was denied on 18 March 2022. The State party notes that in support of his application the complainant provided an affidavit from his mother, dated 13 September 2019. His mother discussed the events that led to his departure from Sri Lanka in 2014 and her belief that the Sri Lankan authorities perceive her family to be supporters of the LTTE. The pre-removal risk assessment officer noted, despite the complainant’s persistent claims about threats by the Sri Lankan authorities against him and his family, that his mother provided no information about Sri Lankan authorities visiting her, or other family members, to look for him, since his departure in 2014. The complainant also provided an undated letter from his brother, which claimed that his brother left Sri Lanka in 2018, due to harassment and ill-treatment from the Sri Lankan army. The brother’s letter states that prior to his departure, the Sri Lankan army alleged that he received funds from the complainant to revive the LTTE in Sri Lanka. To accompany the brother’s letter, the complainant also provided an English translation of a Sri Lanka Police Terrorist Investigation Division document, dated 10 March 2020, which requested him to report to the Division on the same day. The complainant also provided a copy of the decision on his brother’s refugee claim in France. The assessment officer noted that although the brother’s alleged harassment and ill-treatment by the Sri Lankan army occurred before the brother’s departure in 2018, no member of the complainant’s family provided any evidence about Sri Lankan authorities visiting the family to inquire about the complainant after his departure in 2014. The assessment officer also noted that though the Terrorist Investigation Division allegedly requested the complainant to report to the Division on 10 March 2020, it was unreasonable that the Division would require him to report to the Division on the same day the document was sent, which occurred in the late afternoon. Further, the assessment officer noted that the Terrorist Investigation Division document was missing the following information: a full address of the location where the complainant was to report; an appointment time for the interview; and a legible signature of the document’s signer. Further, as to the brother’s successful refugee claim in France, the assessment officer noted that it was based on the brother’s evidence before the French decision maker, which was not provided to the assessment officer. As the brother’s evidence may be based on an entirely different record of evidence than the complainant’s, the assessment officer afforded no weight to the brother’s refugee claim with respect to the complainant’s claim of risk of torture in Sri Lanka.

On 14 March 2022, the complainant made a second request to the Canada Border Services Agency to defer his removal. On 15 March 2022, the Canada Border Services Agency enforcement officer determined that there were insufficient grounds to defer his removal. The Agency enforcement officer found that the complainant had not provided credible evidence of any new risk based on his return to Sri Lanka. As to the document from the Terrorist Investigation Division, the Agency officer noted the same concerns as those raised by the pre-removal risk assessment officer. Further, the Agency officer noted that on 21 February 2022, during an interview held by the Canada Border Services Agency with the complainant at the immigration holding centre about his upcoming removal from Canada, the complainant had stated that one week prior to the interview, his wife in Sri Lanka had received the Terrorist Investigation Division document, which was dated 10 March 2020. Based on these findings, the Agency officer determined that the Terrorist Investigation Division document was not credible.

On 16 March 2022, the complainant applied to the Federal Court for a second stay of the removal order. The application was dismissed on 18 March 2022. The Court noted that for the preceding seven years, the risks that the complainant allegedly faced in Sri Lanka had been assessed by multiple tribunals, immigration officers and, on numerous occasions, by the Federal Court, which all resulted in the same negative outcome. Based on the complainant’s overall immigration history, the Federal Court declined to hear his second application for a stay of removal. On 23 March 2022, the complainant was removed to Sri Lanka.

Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.

The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that, in the present case, the State party has argued that parts of the complainant’s claims should be found inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies as the complainant has referred to newspaper articles and country reports not invoked before domestic authorities to support his claims raised before the Committee, despite having had opportunities to refer to said documents before domestic authorities. The Committee, however, considers that the documents referred to by the complainant only contain general information as to the human rights situation in Sri Lanka, and do not present new facts or evidence pertaining to the complainant’s claims that would have needed to be first assessed domestically. The Committee therefore finds that the reference to said general country information does not preclude it from considering the author’s claims under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention.

The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the communication should be found to be inadmissible as being manifestly unfounded, as the complainant has not substantiated the existence of grounds for believing that he would face a foreseeable, present, personal and real risk of persecution, if he were returned to Sri Lanka. The Committee notes the complainant’s claims that he has previously been arrested and subjected to ill-treatment in Sri Lanka, and his claims that he would risk being subjected to persecution due to his perceived links to the LTTE if removed to Sri Lanka. The Committee considers that the complainant has sufficiently substantiated, for the purposes of admissibility, these claims under article 3 of the Convention.

In the absence of any further obstacles to the admissibility, the Committee declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits.

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.

In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the forced removal of the complainant to Sri Lanka constitutes a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or 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.

The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would personally be at risk 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. As regards the case at hand, the Committee refers to its concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of Sri Lanka, in which it voiced serious concerns about reports suggesting that abductions, torture and ill-treatment perpetrated by State security forces in Sri Lanka, including by the police, had continued in many parts of the country after the conflict with LTTE had ended in May 2009.⁵ It also refers to credible reports by non-governmental organizations concerning the ill-treatment of returnees by the authorities in Sri Lanka.⁶ However, 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.⁷ Moreover, although past events may be of relevance, the principal question before the Committee is whether the complainant currently runs a risk of torture if returned to Sri Lanka.

5. CAT/C/LKA/CO/5, paras. 9–12. See also CAT/C/LKA/CO/3-4, para. 6. ↩
6. Freedom from Torture, Tainted Peace: Torture in Sri Lanka Since May 2009 (London, August 2015); and Human Rights Watch, World Report 2019 (New York, 2019). ↩
7. See, e.g., S.P.A. v. Canada (CAT/C/37/D/282/2005), para. 7.1; T.I. v. Canada (CAT/C/45/D/333/2007), para. 7.3; and A.M.A. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/45/D/344/2008), para. 7.2. ↩

The Committee recalls its general comment No. 4 (2017), according to which the Committee will assess “substantial grounds” and consider the risk of torture as foreseeable, personal, present and real when the existence of credible facts relating to the risk by itself, at the time of its decision, would affect the rights of the complainant under the Convention in case of his or her deportation. Indications of personal risk may include, but are not limited to: (a) the complainant’s ethnic background; (b) political affiliation or political activities of the complainant or his or her family members; (c) arrest or detention without guarantee of fair treatment and trial; (d) previous torture; (e) incommunicado detention or other form of arbitrary and illegal detention in the country of origin; and (f) clandestine escape from the country of origin following threats of torture (para. 45). With respect to the merits of a communication submitted under article 22 of the Convention, the burden of proof is upon the author of the communication, who must present an arguable case, that is, submit substantiated arguments showing that the danger of being subjected to torture is foreseeable, present, personal and real (para. 38).⁸ The Committee also recalls that it gives considerable weight to findings of fact made by organs of the State party concerned; however, it is not bound by such findings, as it can make a free assessment of the information available to it in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, taking into account all the circumstances relevant to each case (para. 50).

8. T.Z. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/62/D/688/2015), para. 8.4. ↩

The Committee notes the complainant’s claims that he would be at risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention if returned to Sri Lanka as he would risk detention and ill-treatment due to his perceived LTTE connections. It notes his claim that he was detained twice in 2000 and subjected to ill-treatment due to suspected links to the LTTE. It further notes his claims that when he moved back to Sri Lanka in 2011, he was subjected to harassment by the authorities. It also notes his claim that one of his cousins was a member of the LTTE and that his brother had died in 2011 from heart failure after having been detained, tortured and harassed by the authorities. The Committee further notes that, in his comments on the State party’s observations, the complainant also argues that the fact that his brother has been granted international protection in France and that he himself has been issued a summons to report to the police station in connection with his brother’s departure from Sri Lanka substantiates his claim that he would be subjected to torture upon return to Sri Lanka.

The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the complainant’s account of events was found not to be credible by the State party authorities. It further notes information submitted by the State party indicating that at the hearing before the Refugee Protection Division, the complainant was represented by legal counsel, had the right to provide documentary evidence and oral testimony and to make oral and written submissions. It also notes the State party’s argument that in the initial application before the Refugee Protection Division and the Refugee Appeals Division, the complainant did not claim that any of his activities were related to the LTTE, and it notes that the migration authorities found that the complainant did not fit the profile of being a person suspected of links with the LTTE. The Committee further notes the State party’s argument that the complainant has not provided any evidence that he was tortured in the past, nor provided information or sufficient evidence of his allegation that he is a person suspected of links with the LTTE.

The Committee notes the findings of the Refugee Protection Division and the Refugee Appeals Division, which accepted that the complainant may have been arrested in 2000. It notes, however, that the arrests or detentions were found to have been a part of general round ups conducted by the authorities during the conflict and that the complainant was not personally targeted. It also notes that these arrests took place in 2000, 22 years ago. The Committee further notes the findings of the Refugee Appeals Division that a court document provided by the complainant from the Colombo Chief Magistrate Court stated that he was released by the Court and that no mention of any alleged connection to the LTTE was made in the court document. The Committee further notes the findings of the migration authorities that the complainant was able to travel from Sri Lanka in 2001 and return in 2011, using his own passport, indicating that he was of no interest to the Sri Lankan authorities. It further notes that the migration authorities found the complainant’s claim that he had to leave Sri Lanka in 2014 due to harassment from the authorities not to be credible as he had made inconsistent statements regarding this claim, initially stating that he was only sought by the authorities once, in 2011, while later in the proceedings also claiming that the authorities inquired about his whereabouts a second time, in 2014.

The Committee further notes that following the rejection of his initial application for asylum in 2015, the complainant raised further claims about the risk he would face if returned to Sri Lanka in subsequent proceedings in 2019, claiming that his brother had died of a heart attack in 2011, after having been detained and tortured by Sri Lankan authorities, and that one of his cousins had been a member of the LTTE. The Committee notes that the death certificate submitted by the complainant states that his brother died due to heart failure caused by high blood pressure. It notes the State party’s submission that this claim contradicts information the complainant provided in his Basis of Claim Form, which he filed on 4 March 2015, in which he stated that said brother passed away in 2011 from a heart attack, without making any claim that his brother’s death was caused by the Sri Lankan authorities, and also notes that he did not raise this claim in three subsequent domestic processes, prior to 2019. The Committee further notes the State party’s argument that at no time during the initial domestic proceedings did the complainant make any reference to his cousin’s alleged LTTE links, nor produce the letters from family members that he submitted in his 2019 stay of removal application, despite having had plenty of opportunities to do so during the previous domestic proceedings.

The Committee finally notes the complainant’s argument that the fact that his brother was granted international protection in France in 2021 and that he himself was issued a summons to report to the police station in connection with his brother’s departure from Sri Lanka substantiates his claim that he would be subjected to torture upon return to Sri Lanka. It notes, however, that the State party authorities questioned the authenticity of the summons submitted by the complainant on the basis of the basic information that was lacking in the document and of inconsistencies in the date of the document and when it was allegedly received by his family (paras. 6.1–6.2). The Committee also notes that the complainant has not provided any specific information as to why he would be of interest to Sri Lankan authorities, considering the fact that the incidents concerning his arrest and detention dates back to 2000, that he left Sri Lanka in 2011, that he does not claim to have been a member or supporter of the LTTE, nor has he claimed before domestic authorities that his immediate family were either members or supporters of the LTTE, or raised any other claim that he has been involved in any political activities. In this connection, the Committee notes that, according to the decision provided by the complainant on his brother’s application for asylum in France, there are significant discrepancies in the account of events made by the complainant and his brother as to the family’s alleged LTTE connections. It notes that the complainant’s brother in his application stated that three of the brothers in the family fought for the LTTE, that one died in 2011, after having been subjected to torture in detention, and that the two others disappeared during the war. These claims were not made by the complainant in his application for asylum in the State party.

On the basis of the above, and in the light of the material before it, the Committee considers that the complainant has not provided sufficient evidence to enable it to conclude that his forcible removal to his country of origin would expose him to a real, foreseeable, personal and present risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention.

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.