CAT/C/71/D/789/2016
detained by the police. He also submitted a medical note from a medical practitioner in Sri
Lanka in which it was stated that the complainant had multiple contusions on his whole body
following an assault on 3 June 2012. The Tribunal found that the complainant’s account was
not entirely credible, as he had not grown up in an LTTE-controlled area as he had initially
claimed. The Tribunal also found that the complainant had been arrested when he had
attempted to leave Sri Lanka. Regarding the letter from the medical doctor, the Tribunal noted
that it had been submitted to the Tribunal after a question regarding medical documentation
had been raised by the Tribunal.
2.8
The Tribunal noted that, while the complainant had been detained in May 2012, the
letter from the medical doctor was dated 23 January 2015. Moreover, the Tribunal noted that
the letter did not support the complainant’s allegation that the ill-treatment to which he had
been subjected included penetration with a stick. Given its concern about the overall
credibility of the complainant’s account, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the complainant
had been ill-treated while detained. The Tribunal found that, if the complainant were to be
detained upon return to Sri Lanka due to the outstanding charge against him, his profile did
not indicate that he would be singled out for ill-treatment by the authorities. Based on
information available on the situation in the country, the most likely penalty for leaving Sri
Lanka illegally would be a fine, unless the person was suspected of facilitating or organizing
the smuggling of persons. The complainant’s application for judicial review of the decision
was rejected by the Federal Circuit Court on 14 August 2015. That decision was upheld by
the Federal Court on 2 September 2015.
Complaint
3.
The complainant claims that, if deported to Sri Lanka, he will be arrested for his illegal
departure and, once the earlier charges against him are discovered, he will be kept in detention
for an extended period of time. He claims that he risks being subjected to torture and illtreatment during his detention, as this is usual practice in Sri Lanka.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
The State party submitted its observations on the admissibility of the communication
by a note verbale dated 6 February 2016. It submits that the communication is inadmissible
ratione materiae and because it is manifestly unfounded.
4.2
The State party submits that the complainant has made a number of claims that are
inadmissible ratione materiae. In particular, the State party refers to the complainant’s claims
that he was subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment by the Criminal
Investigations Department. The State party argues that article 3 of the Convention does not
apply to these claims because they do not involve allegations that the complainant has been
subjected to harm of such a degree as to fall within the definition of torture under article 1 of
the Convention and that the complainant cannot therefore claim that he is the victim of a
violation by the State party of the Convention.
4.3
If the Committee does not accept that the complainant’s claims are inadmissible
ratione materiae, the State party also submits that the claims are manifestly unfounded. The
State party notes that the complainant claims that he would risk detention and torture in Sri
Lanka. The State party argues that the complainant does not offer any specific evidence in
support of his claims and submits that they are therefore inadmissible because they are
manifestly unfounded.
4.4
The State party further submits that the complainant’s claims have been thoroughly
considered by several decision makers at the domestic level and have been found not to
engage the State party’s non-refoulement obligations under the Convention. The complainant
has not submitted any new claims or evidence in his submission to the Committee that have
not already been considered by the domestic authorities. It further notes that the domestic
authorities have found a number of the complainant’s claims to be not credible.
4.5
On 28 August 2017, the State party submitted its observations on the merits. It
reiterates that the communication should be found inadmissible. Should the Committee
consider the communication to be admissible, then the complainant’s claims are without
merit.
3