conclusion applies a fortiori to the mere risk of arrest (communication No.
65/1997, I.A.O. v. Sweden). The State party recalls that, in the present case, the
complainant in fact claims that he would be arrested for not fulfilling his
obligation to report to the CID office once a week.
4.11 The State party asserts that it is because the arguments were persuasive that
the Commission considered the complainant’s claims to be lacking in
credibility. According to the State party, these arguments are not weakened by
the mere fact that the complainant is now transmitting to the Committee for the
first time a document which was allegedly issued by the Colombo police on 23
August 1999, according to which the complainant had been arrested again on 3
January 1999 and was wanted by the police for having failed to report to the
CID office. The State party points out that the complainant should have and
could have provided this information to the Swiss authorities during the internal
procedure, as an asylum-seeker is bound by a duty to cooperate. The State party
finds it particularly surprising that, when the complainant appeared before the
Swiss authorities he never mentioned his arrest on 3 January 1999, even though
this supposedly took place shortly before he left Sri Lanka. The State party adds
that the complainant also argues that he was subjected to torture while under
arrest and that the Sri Lankan authorities bound and beat him. However,
according to the State party, the Swiss doctors who examined the complainant
and administered his anti-tubercular treatment never reported any suspected
after-effects of acts of violence.
4.12 The State party explains that, quite apart from these inconsistencies, it
should be pointed out that the complainant’s allegations in connection with the
arrest on 3 January 1999 and the arrest warrant are implausible. During the
cantonal hearing, the complainant explicitly stated that, after his arrest in
Colombo by the PLOTE in February 1998, he was released “on condition that
he return immediately to Kilinochchi”, adding that members of the PLOTE “told
me not to return to Colombo”. If he had returned to Colombo, the complainant
would allegedly have been in danger of being “detained for longer, without
being brought before a court”. According to the State party, however, these
assertions with regard to the arrest by the Colombo police on 3 January 1999
and, especially, the judge’s order that the complainant be released on condition
that he report to the CID office every Saturday clearly lack credibility.
4.13 Lastly, the State party believes that the complainant’s explanations
concerning the way he left Sri Lanka need, at the very least, to be treated with
caution. The complainant does not explain, in particular, how he was able to
leave the country from Colombo airport although wanted by the police.
According to the State party, the extremely tight security controls in operation at
the airport would never have allowed the complainant to check in for the flight
and pass through police and border controls. The State party considers it
unlikely that he could, as he claims, have been assisted by a trafficker, who