4.7 The State party finds these claims to say the least surprising, since during the
internal procedure, the complainant initially stated spontaneously that he had not
been arrested again by the police or the CID after April 1997. During the
hearing, however, the complainant claimed to have been arrested by the
People’s Liberation Organization Tamil Eelam (PLOTE) in February 1998.
According to the State party, it was only in his appeal to the Commission that
the complainant indicated, in a very vague way and completely contradicting his
earlier claims, that he had been arrested or detained by the police or the CID on
several occasions between February 1998 and his departure for Switzerland.
4.8 The State party points out that, although the document allegedly drawn up
by the Colombo police is dated 23 August 1999, the complainant never said that
he had been arrested in 1999 either during the above-mentioned hearings, or in
his appeal to the Commission of 21 September 1999, or in his letters to the
Commission dated 15 and 19 October 1999. According to the State party, it is
even more surprising that the complainant did not refer to this document in his
request for an extension of the 10 January 2000 deadline for his departure. The
State party points out that, since this document was never produced in the course
of the ordinary proceedings, the complainant could have called for a review of
the facts, but had not done so. The State party points out that such a review is
recognized as an effective domestic remedy within the meaning of article 22,
paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention. The State party is of the view that, in any
event, this document cannot be taken into account in the present case.
4.9 The State party explains that there is good reason to doubt the origin and
content of this document, which, again, was never produced before the national
bodies. The State party observes that it might be wondered why the complainant
is afraid of being prosecuted by the police when the latter obligingly provide
him with a document setting out in chronological order all the occasions on
which he claims to have been arrested. According to the State party, it would be
a strange police force indeed that was kind enough to provide a person it wished
to arrest with the very means of avoiding arrest. The State party concludes that
the 1999 arrest is obviously implausible and that the document supposedly
issued by the Colombo police, produced in the form of an uncertified copy, has
no probative value.
4.10 After recalling the Committee’s jurisprudence and its general comment on
the implementation of article 3, the State party states that, in the case under
consideration, the Swiss Government entirely agrees with the grounds given by
the Commission in support of its decision to turn down the complainant’s
application for asylum and to confirm his expulsion. With regard to article 3 of
the Convention, the State party wishes to point out, by way of a preliminary
remark, that according to the Committee’s jurisprudence (communication No.
57/1996,P.Q.L. v. Canada), this provision affords no protection to a complainant
who simply claims to fear arrest upon returning to his country. The same