CAT/C/22/D/106/1998
page 6
4.9
There were also contradictory statements regarding his movements in
Sri Lanka. In his arrival interview he said that he had lived in Jaffna until
going to Colombo in January 1997 to further his studies. Later, in his
compliance interview with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural
Affairs, the author stated that he had lived in Jaffna until March 1993, then
lived in Colombo from March 1993 to February 1995, returning to Jaffna in
March 1995 because of the conditions in Colombo; he returned to Colombo about
a month before his departure for Singapore and Australia. When questioned
about the different stories by the RRT, the author stated that on arrival he
had untruthfully concealed his employment in Colombo in 1993/94 because he had
been told that this might lead to his immediate deportation. The State party,
like the RRT, has formed the view that the author has diverged from the truth
where it has suited his purposes.
4.10 The State party underlines the importance of the RRT findings. The
tribunal has experience in reviewing applications concerning Sri Lankan
nationals. In the 1996/97 programme year, 930 applications for review were
received by the RRT from Sri Lankan nationals. Of the 678 applications
processed, 236 were set aside and 408 were affirmed. Thirty-four
applications were otherwise resolved. Thus, in relation to primary decisions,
the set aside rate on review was 37 per cent.
4.11 Furthermore, the State party states that its view that the author's
allegation lacks substantiation is supported by the lack of detail concerning,
and independent corroboration of, the ill-treatment he allegedly experienced.
During the asylum procedure the author has only described once the details of
his ill-treatment. Even then, he described only one of the nine instances.
There is no evidence to indicate that the author suffers from post-trauma
stress which might affect his ability to provide detail of prior traumatic
events.
4.12 The State party also points out that there are no documents to support
the allegation that the author would face risk on return. Despite his claim
to have some scars as the result of the torture he suffered at the hands of
the EPRLF, the author has not provided any evidence of any permanent scarring
that is consistent with the alleged mistreatment at the hands of the
Sri Lankan authorities.
B.
Observations on merits
4.13 The State party submits that should the Committee declare the
communication admissible, it should be found to be without merit.
4.14 The State party recognizes that fighting between the LTTE and the
Sri Lankan Government in recent years has taken a heavy toll on the civilian
population and that despite an improvement in the human rights situation in
recent years, mass movements of civilians and human rights infringements by
both the security forces personnel and the LTTE continue to take place.
However, in accordance with the Committee’s jurisprudence, specific grounds
must exist indicating that the individual concerned would be personally at
risk of torture upon return.