CAT/C/22/D/106/1998
page 5
applicant had to be unable to resume normal life; the applicant had to have
suffered substantial discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity or political
belief; the applicant must have a parent, daughter, son, brother, sister,
aunt, uncle, nephew or niece who was an Australian citizen or permanent
resident on 1 January 1994, was usually resident in Australia and who would
provide an undertaking to support the applicant.
4.6
The application was made in February 1996, i.e. less than 18 months
after the alleged arrest and torture of the author by police in October 1994
and after the other alleged instances of ill-treatment of the author
in 1994, 1993, 1989, 1988 and 1987. However, no mention was made in the
application of any ill-treatment of the son, despite the fact that the
application form stated that claims by any member of the close family which
supported the application should be included. It is likely that the author’s
father would have known of any ill-treatment of his son since the latter had
been a schoolboy of approximately 15 when the first instance of torture
allegedly occurred. Moreover, the son appears to have kept in regular contact
with his father after leaving for Colombo. In the State party's view, the
omission by the author's father of any reference to the considerable
ill-treatment that is later alleged by his son undermines the author's
credibility.
4.7
The State party further submits that the author lacks credibility in
view of inconsistent evidence and admissions he has made since his arrival in
Australia. The State party underlines that it is not concerned with minor or
irrelevant inconsistencies and that it recognizes the jurisprudence of the
Committee that complete accuracy in the application for asylum is seldom to be
expected of victims of torture. 5 In the category of minor or irrelevant
inconsistencies Australia places the differing allegations regarding the year
and extent of damage to the family home after shelling by the army in
the 1980s; the perpetrators of the alleged arrest of the author in 1987; the
means by which the author received confirmation that the police who visited
his workplace in early 1997 were in fact looking for him. The evidence
provided to Australia by the author and his advisers has, over time, included
increasingly elaborate, and at times conflicting, statements of fact
concerning his alleged treatment in Sri Lanka.
4.8
The variations between the author's original and later statements were
noted by the RRT at its hearing. On arrival at Melbourne airport, the author
was asked whether he had had any trouble with the police/army in his home
country or whether his family had experienced any other disruption. His
response was that he had been detained on one occasion, overnight. No
reference was made to any ill-treatment. One month later, in the statement
supporting his application for a protection visa, the author mentioned no
fewer than seven instances of alleged mistreatment, detention and/or torture.
Three months after arriving in Australia, in his reasons for review filed with
the RRT, he mentioned an additional experience: the alleged interrogation for
20 days in December 1996. Responding to a request by the RRT, for an
explanation, the author stated that he had “misunderstood the question at the
airport concerning difficulties with the authorities”. 6 The State party is
of the view that the author's explanation undermines his credibility with
respect not only to the incident that he later said caused him to leave
Sri Lanka, but to all later allegations of ill-treatment.