CAT/C/62/D/696/2015
Council to be justified. In essence, the Council found that the Medical Examination
Commission did not establish that the injuries on the complainant’s body were caused as a
result of the alleged ill-treatment by the Sri Lankan authorities and that the complainant’s
story and statements were vague and contradictory.
2.7
On 15 April 2015, the complainant submitted a second asylum application. On 21
April 2015, IND rejected the second asylum application, because the complainant did not
provide any new facts or new information. On the same day, the complainant appealed
IND’s decision before the court. On 18 May 2015, the court rejected the complainant’s
appeal as unfounded. On 26 May 2015, the complainant sent an appellate complaint by post.
It was received on 27 May 2015. On 16 June 2015, the Council of State rejected the
complainant’s appeal on the grounds that it was not submitted within the prescribed time
limit set by the law.
2.8
The complainant claims to have exhausted all available domestic remedies.
The complaint
3.1
The complainant claims that there are substantial grounds for believing that he will
be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to Sri Lanka, on the basis of the
following:
(a)
He is a young Tamil man from the Eastern part of Sri Lanka;
(b)
He left Sri Lanka illegally;
(c)
He would be returning from the Netherlands, a centre for LTTE fundraising;
(d)
He has lodged an asylum claim abroad;
(e)
He has a previous record as a suspected or actual member or supporter of
(f)
He escaped from detention at the Karuna Group camp;
(g)
He has scars on his body caused as a result of ill-treatment;
(h)
He was asked to be an informant for the Special Task Forces.
LTTE;
State party’s observations on admissibility
4.1
By note verbale of 13 October 2015, the State party challenged the admissibility of
the complaint. The State party submits that the complainant lodged a second asylum
application on 15 April 2015, which IND denied on 21 April 2015. The complainant lodged
an application for judicial review of the IND decision, which The Hague District Court
rejected on 18 May 2015. The State party notes that the complainant appealed that
judgment before the Council of State; however, the appeal was lodged late. The State party
alleges that the Council of State provided the author with the opportunity to substantiate the
late submission, but he failed to do so. Thus, the Council of State declared the appeal
inadmissible on 16 June 2015, as a result of which the proceedings on the complaint’s
request for residence status came to an end. Accordingly, pursuant to article 22 (5) (b) of
the Convention, the complaint is inadmissible due to failure to exhaust all available
domestic remedies.
Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations
5.1
In his submission dated 7 January 2016, the complainant disputed the State party’s
assertion that the appeal was lodged late. The complainant referred to his original complaint,
in which he explained that the appeal had been mailed on time, however, the Council of
State received it one day late.
5.2
The complainant also asserted that the appeal procedure at the Council of State is
not an effective remedy, because it does not allow for waiting for the outcome of the
decision. The complainant referred to a decision of the European Court of Human Rights of
11 January 2007, in which the Court decided that the particular case was admissible, even
3