deprived of his/her liberty or whose liberty has been restricted, the petitioner
may lodge an appeal immediately with the District Court.
4.6 With respect to the general human rights situation in Sri Lanka, the State
party submits that the current policy on asylum-seekers from Sri Lanka is
based on the Minister of Foreign Affairs' country report of 28 July 2000,
which describes recent developments there. The State Secretary for Justice
concluded from this report that the return of rejected asylum-seekers is still
a responsible course of action. Though the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka did
intensify significantly in October/November 1999, creating a very unstable
situation in the north and east of the country, in government-controlled
areas, Tamils can still find alternative places of residence.
4.7 The State party also states that the UNHCR takes the view that asylumseekers from Sri Lanka whose application for asylum are refused after
careful consideration can be returned to their country of origin. According to
the State party, the Minister's country report of 22 August 2000 indicates
that this position has not changed. In addition, the State party quotes from
the Minister's report, dated 27 April 2001, which discusses the risk of
detention, prolonged or otherwise, that Tamils with scars are exposed to. It
states that "All sources consulted say that external scars can prompt further
interrogation, but not on their ownNone of the sources consulted was of the
opinion that a scar would constitute a risk factor for someone who had the
necessary documents and a credible reason for being in Colombo.."
4.8 The State party refers to the Committee's jurisprudence that an
individual must provide specific grounds indicating that he/she would be
personally at risk of being tortured if returned to the receiving
country. (1) The State party contests the allegation that the petitioner would
be so at risk. It states that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he
would be under suspicion by either the authorities or PLOTE, especially
since his alleged work for the LTTE took place more than seven years ago.
The State party does not consider it plausible that the petitioner would now
encounter problems as a result to these alleged activities.
4.9 The State party argues that after his arrest by PLOTE and the Sri Lankan
army in October 2000, he was released on both occasions after only one day.
The State party finds it implausible that the petitioner would have been
released after such a short time if he had been suspected of being involved
with the LTTE. In addition, the State party finds it significant that the
petitioner travelled to Colombo and then to the airport with the permission
of the authorities after being held in detention in October 2000 and being
checked twice during this trip without any difficulties from the authorities.
The petitioner then left the country using his own authentic passport. This
sequence of events, it is submitted, does not suggest that the Sri Lankan