of the Sri Lankan authorities and the LTTE. He stayed with friends in Kandy and
later in Hatton for some months, before he went to Colombo.
2.6
Later in 1996, the Maradana police arrested the complainant in Colombo,
detained him for one week and questioned him on his relationship with the LTTE. It
is submitted that the complainant was beaten every night by police officers and that he
was not given proper food. In March 1997, the complainant managed to flee Sri
Lanka to Cambodia, Bangkok and Sydney.
2.7
Counsel submits that in view of the two arrests of the complainant with regard
to the Kolonawa bomb blast, there is a real chance that he would be arrested again
should he return to Sri Lanka. Counsel believes that the documents, which have been
taken away from the complainant by the police, have been supplied to the secret
police (NIB) and, therefore, the authorities will be in a position to trace the
complainant wherever he lives. Counsel argues that the complainant had been
arrested and come to the attention of the security forces for providing a safe place to
LTTE members who allegedly were involved in what is considered to be one of the
major assassinations committed by the LTTE. The complainant would very likely be
detained and interrogated at the airport upon his return to Colombo.
2.8
Counsel further submits that there are substantial grounds for believing that
the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture by Sri Lankan
police, security forces and the LTTE if he returned to Sri Lanka. The complainant
experienced torture and ill-treatment by the authorities and the LTTE before he left
the country. Counsel quotes Human Rights Watch reports and reports by the United
States Department of State of 1996 as evidence of a consistent pattern of gross and
systematic violations of human rights in Sri Lanka. Counsel argues that under the
Prevention of Terrorism Act and Emergency Regulations the police can arrest on the
basis of mere suspicion, often based on the presumption of guilt arising merely from a
person coming from the north or east of the country. In such an atmosphere, counsel
sees every chance that the complainant, as a Tamil-speaking young man from the
Eastern Province of Sri Lanka, will be harassed and mistreated by the authorities on
mere suspicion. Counsel quotes from Sri Lankan newspaper headlines and articles in
this regard.
The complaint
3.1
Counsel submits that the evaluation of evidence in asylum procedures in
Australia is deficient. Counsel argues that the Australian immigration authorities
expect an applicant to give the full facts on his claim upon his arrival. Counsel
submits that this is not justified, as asylum-seekers behave initially in an irrational and
inadequate way, do not trust the authorities and are only ready to tell the true and
complete story after having been in the country for some time. Therefore, the opinion
of the Australian Government that whatever is invoked later is not trustworthy is
considered absurd by counsel, as in cases such as the complainant’s new statements
have to be accepted by the RRT in spite of the fact that the story was incoherent,
inconsistent and contradictory in the beginning.
3.2
Counsel claims that the deportation of the complainant to Sri Lanka violated
article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Inhuman or Degrading
4