CAT/C/71/D/896/2018
2.7
In December 2011 or January 2012, the complainant wrote a letter to his mother to
inquire about the situation in Sri Lanka. The complainant’s uncle answered the letter and
informed the complainant that the Sri Lankan authorities were still looking for him. His uncle
sent him three documents, transmitted on behalf of the complainant’s mother, namely, a letter
from the police station in Kilinochchi dated 21 February 2011, a summons enumerating the
accusations against the complainant dated 3 November 2011 and a warrant for the
complainant’s arrest dated 8 December 2011.
2.8
On 14 June 2012, the complainant submitted a new application for a temporary asylum
residence permit on the basis of the new evidence received from his uncle. His asylum
application was denied by the Immigration and Naturalization Service on 22 June 2012. The
decision of the authority of first instance was based on the opinion of the Royal Military and
Border Police, in which the latter had concluded that the submitted documents had not been
drawn up and issued by the competent authorities, due to the irregularities detected in their
format. The complainant’s appeal was rejected by the District Court of The Hague on 19
August 2014. No appeal was sought against that judgment.
2.9
On 15 April 2015, the complainant submitted his third application for asylum. He
based the application on the fact that, in early December 2014, he had had the emblem of the
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam tattooed on his upper right arm. The application was
dismissed on 20 November 2015 on the grounds that the tattoo did not indicate that the
complainant was to be regarded as a high-profile individual playing a significant role in Tamil
separatism or any activities against the Government of Sri Lanka.5 The complainant’s appeals
were rejected on 18 December 2015 by the District Court of The Hague and on 5 February
2016 by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State.
2.10 On 2 June 2017, the complainant submitted a new asylum request on the basis of a
medical report issued by the Institute for Human Rights and Medical Assessment. On 7 June
2017, his application was denied by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. On 28 June
2017, the District Court of The Hague declared the complainant’s request for judicial review
well founded. That decision was challenged by the Minister for Migration and, by judgment
of 7 November 2017, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State
declared the complainant’s request for judicial review unfounded.
2.11 With reference to those proceedings, the complainant claims that he has exhausted all
available domestic remedies.
2.12 It is further submitted that the complainant has been actively engaged in various
events organized by Tamils in the Netherlands, such as the annual commemorations of
Heroes Day. On 20 March 2013, the complainant became a member of the Tamil Youth
Organization in the Netherlands. Apart from participating in demonstrations against the
Government of Sri Lanka, he provides assistance in organizing the events. On 20 May 2015,
he also gained membership in the Dutch Tamil Forum, a group whose aim is promoting an
independent Tamil state.
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 claims that there are substantial grounds
for believing that he would be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment at the hands of the authorities of Sri Lanka.
3.2
In particular, the complainant alleges that he has been subjected to ill-treatment in the
past by the Sri Lanka Army. He underlines that the forensic medical report attests to his
5
It appears from the court documents that the complainant submitted an attestation as well, dated 25
December 2014, drawn up by the village officer (grama niladhari) on the basis of his mother’s
statement claiming that eight unidentified men, some in uniforms and some in plain clothing, went to
the house of the complainant’s parents to inquire about his whereabouts. The complainant’s mother
reported the incident to the police; the extract of the police report was also attached to the court file.
The court, however, found that those documents did not have probative value, given that they were
prepared at the request of the complainant’s mother.
3