CAT/C/68/D/855/2017
had formed a coalition with several small parties, called the United People’s Freedom
Alliance. The complainant had participated in various activities of the Alliance.
2.2
By the time the 2010 parliamentary election took place, the complainant had become
disaffected with the President of Sri Lanka and switched allegiance to the United National
Party. During the election campaign in 2010, the complainant was shot at by unidentified
people, presumably supporters of the United People’s Freedom Alliance. He also received
death threats in the factory premises. During the election campaign, he was abducted and
beaten by supporters of the Alliance, who pressured him to return to it. He attempted to
complain to the police but was told to stop disgracing the Government. He continued to be
harassed, including by receiving a phone call from the Deputy Minister for Public
Administration, Dahanayake, and being suspended from work. Even after his departure
from Sri Lanka, his wife informed him that officers of the Criminal Investigation
Department had visited and inquired about his whereabouts.
2.3
The complainant arrived on Christmas Island, Australia, by boat on 11 April 2012.
In June 2012, he applied for a protection visa. The delegate of the Minister for Immigration
and Border Protection of Australia refused his application on 1 October 2012. He sought a
review of that decision before the Refugee Review Tribunal, which upheld the original
refusal on 22 February 2013. On 22 March 2013, he appealed that decision to the Federal
Circuit Court, which remitted the matter back to the Refugee Review Tribunal. On 19
August 2014, the Tribunal upheld the delegate’s original refusal again. On 17 September
2014, the complainant sought a judicial review of that decision before the Federal Circuit
Court. His application was dismissed on 23 September 2016. On 26 October 2016, he
appealed the decision before the Federal Court, which dismissed the application on 31
March 2017. His request for special leave to appeal in the High Court was rejected on 12
October 2017. On 8 November 2017, he requested the Minister for Immigration and Border
Protection to intervene, but his request was refused on 9 November 2017. The complainant
claims to have exhausted all available domestic remedies.
2.4
The complainant submits that, after the second hearing at the Refugee Review
Tribunal, his mother informed him that a complaint had been filed against him by
Dahanayake, the Deputy Minister of Public Administration. His uncle, Bandu, called and
told him not to worry and said that the complaint would dissipate of its own accord, given
the absence of the complainant. In August 2014, after the Refugee Review Tribunal issued
its second decision, the complainant obtained a copy of the complaint filed by Dahanayake,
in which he had been accused of misuse of the tea cooperative’s vehicles for political
activities and of destruction of factory machinery. The complainant states that his conflict
with Dahanayake dated back to 2009 when his uncle and Dahanayake became political
rivals and ran for the United People’s Freedom Alliance candidacy for a provincial council.
Even after Dahanayake won the election, the political rivalry continued.
2.5
In the light of this new evidence and in the context of speculation with respect to the
Alliance’s precise motives for targeting him, the complainant believes that he himself was
not the primary target of the attacks, but rather his uncle, Bandu. Dahanayake wished not
only to neutralize the complainant’s uncle, Bandu as a political force, but also to humiliate
him. Dahanayake has made a series of attacks against Bandu, one of which was to attack
Bandu’s nephew and collaborator in his political career, who was weaker than Bandu.
Although Bandu was able to escape a hostile campaign against him, he was weakened and
less capable of protecting his nephew.
The complaint
3.1
The complainant claims that his deportation to Sri Lanka would constitute a
violation of his rights under article 3 of the Convention. He contends that there are
substantial grounds for believing that his uncle’s political rival, the Deputy Minister for
Public Administration, would seek to harm him as a means of harming his uncle. The
complaint brought by Dahanayake against the complainant demonstrates such intention. As
the Penal Code of Sri Lanka criminalizes destruction of government property, the
complainant claims to face a real risk of imprisonment if returned to Sri Lanka. He also
asserts that, owing to the poor conditions of detention in Sri Lanka, any prolonged
2