CAT/C/38/D/305/2006
Page 3
important member of that party. While serving in the military from August 1988 to April
1994, the complainant was physically and psychologically tortured by members of the United
National Party (UNP), because of his political involvement. However, he confirms that this
was not the reason he left the country2.
2.2 From 1994 to 2001, while the SLFP was in power, the complainant did not encounter
any difficulties. However, since 1994, he was categorised as a “most wanted person” by the
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), who he claims want to kill him, because of
knowledge he acquired in the army about this organisation. From December 2001, when the
UNP came back to power, the complainant was threatened and his house was vandalised and
burned down by three members of that party. His wife was told that they would kill him. She
filed a complaint against the individuals who threatened her husband and they were charged.
The complainant was called to give evidence but having received further threats decided not
to give evidence and the charges were dropped. The complainant went into hiding and on 2
July 2003 he left the country. He claims that members of the UNP have continued to threaten
his wife and children since his departure.
2.3 On 14 September 2004, the Migration Board denied his request for asylum on the basis
that Sri Lanka is a democratic state with a well-functioning court system. On 30 December
2005, the Alien’s Appeal Board rejected his appeal, recalling the cease-fire of 2002, and
indicating that it did not believe that the complainant was at risk of being persecuted by the
LTTE. On 31 May 2006, the Migration Board rejected a request for reconsideration.
2.4 In or around 1 June 2006, upon hearing that his application had been rejected, the
complainant attempted suicide but survived. He was transferred from the emergency section
of the hospital to the psychiatric section, where, on 3 June, he made three further attempts to
terminate his life. His lawyer requested reconsideration of the case and a stay of the
deportation order. On 19 June 2006, the Migration Board did not consider that there were
new circumstances in the case and rejected the application for reconsideration.
2.5 On 18 August 2006, the Stockholm Civil Court ruled on the complainant’s appeal of
the decision of 19 June 2006 and did not consider how the situation in Sri Lanka and the new
circumstances invoked by the author demonstrated that he was at a personal risk of
persecution in Sri Lanka. The State party does not appear to contest the credibility of the
complainant but does not believe that the circumstances put him at risk in the event of
deportation.
The complaint:
3.
The complainant claims that he faces a real risk of being killed by either the LTTE or
the UNP if he is returned to Sri Lanka. In addition, because of his contacts with the LTTE
while he was in the army, he may be suspected by the authorities of having links with that
organisation, as a result of which he risks imprisonment or disappearance.
2
He has not submitted any evidence that he was tortured and this was not the basis of his
asylum claim.