CAT/C/65/D/761/2016
State party’s observations on admissibility
4.1
On 27 October 2016, the State party challenged the admissibility of the complaint,
stating that the complainant’s claims was manifestly unfounded and the case was
inadmissible ratione materiae.
4.2
The State party contends that the complainant’s claim that he would be at risk of
torture by the authorities if he were returned to Sri Lanka is inadmissible pursuant to rule
113 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure, because the complainant relies on general
information and does not demonstrate a personal risk. The State party submits that the
complainant makes his claims on the basis of generalized information from the report by
the International Truth and Justice Project Sri Lanka, 1 and refers to other general
information on Sri Lanka, claiming that it demonstrates a consistent pattern of gross,
flagrant or mass violations of human rights in the country. However, the existence of a
general risk of violence does not substantiate an individual and personal risk of a violation
of article 3 of the Convention, and according to the State party, the complainant has failed
to adduce evidence that he would be personally at risk of torture. Therefore, the State party
submits that the complainant’s claims are inadmissible as manifestly unfounded.
4.3
The State party considers that the obligation of non-refoulement under article 3 of
the Convention is confined to situations where the returnee would be in danger of being
subjected to torture as defined in article 1 of the Convention, and does not apply if the
returnee would be at risk of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 2
Therefore, the State party submits that the complainant’s allegations that he would be at
risk of such treatment at the hands of the Sri Lankan authorities or by virtue of his possible
detention in Negombo Remand Prison should be found inadmissible ratione materiae.
4.4
The State party submits that all of the complainant’s claims have been thoroughly
considered in a series of domestic decision-making processes and they have been found not
to engage its non-refoulement obligations under the Convention or under the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Robust domestic processes have considered the
claims and determined that they are not credible. Furthermore, the complainant has not
provided any new claims in his submissions to the Committee, except for the claim that he
was a witness to a possible crime committed by either the Sri Lanka Army or the Criminal
Investigation Department, that have not already been considered through comprehensive
domestic administrative and judicial processes. The State party refers to the Committee’s
general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the
context of article 22 (para. 9), in which the Committee states that as it is not an appellate or
judicial body, it gives considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by organs of a
State party.
Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations
5.1
On 16 January 2017, the complainant commented on the State party’s observations.
He refers to paragraph 18 of the advisory opinion of the Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) on the extraterritorial application of nonrefoulement obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and
its 1967 Protocol,3 and submits that in accordance with the opinion, he only must provide
substantial grounds for believing that the danger exists if he is returned; that is, he is not
required to show that he will be tortured, but only that the danger exists.
5.2
With regard to his claim that he would be held in Negombo Remand Prison, he notes
that his claim in the original complaint may have been improperly framed concerning
“degrading treatment”. He submits that if he were to be detained in Negombo Remand
Prison for a significant period of time, that is, for more than a few days on remand while
2
3
General comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of
article 22, para. 1.
“An explicit non-refoulement provision is contained in article 3 of the 1984 Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which prohibits the
removal of a person to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she
would be in danger of being subjected to torture.”
3