of collaboration with LTTE and was repeatedly questioned in this regard by
EPRLF, but explained that she had performed forced labour for LTTE and
why. She states she was not ill-treated but occasionally struck. She was
handed over to the Sri Lankan authorities, held in custody and made to
identify various alleged LTTE members at roadblocks. In mid-August 1996,
she was able to escape after a convoy in which she was travelling struck a
mine. She travelled to Colombo in late August and left the country by air for
the Netherlands on 12 September 1996. It is alleged, without any details
being provided, that because of her escape her uncle was killed by the
authorities.
2.6 On 18 November 1996, Mrs. S.A.'s request for asylum of 16 October
1996 was denied. An appeal made to the Secretary of Justice on 31
December 1996 was rejected on 20 March 1997. The following day Mrs.
S.A. was informed that the decision was withdrawn and that a new decision
would be taken after hearing before the Advisory Commission.
2.7 Mr. S.S. and Mrs. S.A. were both heard before the three-person
Advisory Commission on 2 February 1998 which, in an extensive and fully
reasoned judgement, unanimously recommended that the Secretary of
Justice reject the authors' appeal against the original denial of
asylum. (1) On 30 June 1998, the Secretary of Justice ruled that the authors
were not eligible for refugee status and that they were in no real danger of
being subjected to inhuman treatment. On 23 July 1998, the authors
appealed this decision to The Hague District Court, which found the appeals
unfounded on 25 January 1999.
The complaint
3. The authors contend that there are substantial grounds to believe that, if
returned, they will be subjected to torture. They state that, as Tamils from
the northern Tamil town of Jaffna, their presence in Colombo will give rise
to suspicions on the part of the authorities of connections to LTTE. Having
been suspected of such connections already, there is said to be nowhere safe
in Sri Lanka where they could go. They contend that the authorities
profoundly believe them to be opponents of the regime. Citing unspecified
reports on the general situation in Sri Lanka by Amnesty International,
UNHCR and other sources, the authors claim a real risk of being detained
and tortured in the event of their return. Accordingly, their forced return is
claimed to violate article 3 of the Convention.
Observations of the State party
4.1 As to the admissibility of the communication, by letter of 28 October
1999, the State party accepts that there are no further avenues of appeal