CAT/C/63/D/618/2014 Alliance after the 2010 elections. It did not accept that there was a real chance that he would be persecuted, since he was involved as an ordinary campaign worker only a few months before the elections and he was not involved in any political activities after the elections. The Tribunal also rejected the author’s claim that he was at risk owing to being Catholic,2 as he lived in a district where almost a third of all residents are Catholic. It also rejected his claim regarding the risks he faces for being a failed asylum seeker returning to Sri Lanka, as he is of Sinhalese ethnicity and is not accused of being in the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. 2.6 On 9 January 2013, the complainant applied to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia for a judicial review of the Refugee Review Tribunal decision. The Court dismissed the matter on 22 May 2013 on the grounds that the complainant had not been targeted by the United People’s Freedom Alliance after the 2010 elections. Therefore, the Court considered that the risk of being persecuted due to his involvement as a campaign worker some months before the elections did not stand and that there was no evidence of his substantive political involvement after the elections. Subsequently, he challenged the Federal Circuit Court decision before the Federal Court of Australia, which dismissed the appeal on 16 August 2013. On 14 October 2013, the complainant’s counsel requested the Minister of the Department of Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship to undertake a ministerial intervention under section 46 A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), which states that the Minister may grant a visa to an unsuccessful applicant if he or she thinks that it is in the public interest to do so. However, the complainant’s request for a ministerial intervention was refused on 4 February 2014. 2.7 The complainant claims that he has exhausted all available and effective domestic remedies capable of preventing his removal, asserting that he should not be required to pursue further remedies in higher courts, as those litigations may take prolonged periods of time to be finalized, while he is at risk of imminent removal.3 He affirms that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The complaint 3.1 The complainant claims that Australia, by forcibly returning him to Sri Lanka, would violate his rights under articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. He claims that upon removal to Sri Lanka, he will be at serious risk of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, particularly at the hands of the Criminal Investigation Department of the Sri Lankan Police and the Sri Lankan Army, as he is suspected of being a member and supporter of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. 3.2 He fears that he would be arrested upon arrival, questioned and detained on remand at Negombo prison, particularly as he left his country illegally, in contravention of section 45 (1) (b) of the Immigrants and Emigrants Act. He adds that it has been well documented that the conditions in Negombo Remand Unit are cramped, unsanitary and unhygienic, and that, regardless of the length of time spent on remand, his detention would constitute inhuman and degrading treatment. He claims that he fears that his Sinhalese ethnicity will increase his risk of harm as he will be seen as a traitor. Moreover, the complainant argues that internal relocation is not an option available to him, as he will immediately be detected and taken into custody by the Sri Lankan authorities upon arrival at Colombo Airport, where he would be questioned and interrogated as he left illegally and will be returning as a failed asylum seeker without a passport. 3.3 The author submits that he is at risk as the Sri Lankan authorities may become aware of his involvement in people smuggling since he was a member of the crew on the boat on which he came to Australia. He considers himself to be at risk of ill-treatment or harm from torture during the process of his investigation and indictment, and could possibly face a lengthy sentence for contravening section 45 C of the Immigrants and Emigrants Act. He 2 3 Before the Refugee Review Tribunal, the complainant claimed that, being Catholic, he feared harm from Buddhist extremists. He did not make that argument in his submission to the Committee. This argument does not appear to be relevant, given that the complainant has sought judicial review of the Refugee Review Tribunal decision and lodged an appeal before the Federal Court. 3

Select target paragraph3