detained while his application was being considered. He was released from detention on 26 February 2001, and since then has been residing in a shelter for asylum-seekers. 2.8 On 27 October 2000, the petitioner had a second interview with the IND. On 28 October 2000, his request for asylum was refused on the grounds that it was manifestly unfounded. On the same day, the petitioner's lawyer lodged an appeal against this decision and against the decision to keep him in custody. By judgement of 13 November 2000, The Hague District Court, declared the appeal unfounded. According to counsel, this decision was unfair for the following main reasons: o o The Court indicated that the petitioner's scars alleged to have been caused in April 2000, but not mentioned by the petitioner or his lawyer until the appeal hearing, did not prove that the petitioner would be personally at risk of torture, as the incident occurred as part of a general enquiry into the death of PLOTE soldiers. Counsel, however, contends that scars on one's body constitute a risk factor, since they can cause suspicion of LTTE involvement by the Sri Lankan authorities. Counsel explains that the incident in April 2000 was not mentioned prior to the appeal as it was not because of these incidents but the incidents in October that the petitioner had fled Sri Lanka. Apparently, in his interview with the Ministry the petitioner had been asked what had made him flee. Counsel also submits that such misunderstandings are unavoidable when the accelerated procedure is employed. He says that this procedure, where an asylum application may be considered in 48 hours from the time of arrival, where the exhausted asylum-seeker is detained with little privacy and spends only three hours with a legal advisor after the first interview with the Ministry, during which there are inevitably problems with interpretation, is obviously not conducive to receiving a correct version of the facts of the case from the asylum-seeker. The complaint 3. Counsel claims that, in view of the earlier treatment received by the petitioner at the hands of PLOTE and the Sri Lankan army, there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture on return to Sri Lanka and, therefore, the Netherlands would be violating article 3 of the Convention if he were returned there. Counsel points out that according to respected sources, "a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights",

Select target paragraph3