CCPR/C/127/D/2484/2014
substantiate his claims, and that he had not exhausted domestic remedies. On 17 March
2017, the Committee decided to accede to the State party’s request to lift the interim
measures.
The facts as presented by the author
2.1
The author came to Canada on 18 October 2013, having travelled through Qatar,
Brazil, Mexico and the United States of America. He applied for asylum immediately. On 8
August 2014, the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada rejected his asylum
application, determining that the claimant was not “a person in need of protection”. Having
heard all the evidence, the Board panel concluded that the author did not face a personal
risk of torture in Sri Lanka.
2.2
The author submits that on 3 October 2014, he filed an application for leave to
appeal at the Federal Court.1 He did not benefit from an automatic stay of removal pending
this application because he entered Canada through the United States. In practice, leave to
appeal is granted in only 10 per cent of all applications and the evidence is reviewed based
only on a “reasonableness” standard, which does not allow for a genuine review of the case.
2.3
Regarding the pre-removal risk assessment, under the amended Immigration and
Refugee Act, applications for such assessments for individuals who have had their refugee
claims rejected are no longer allowed, unless 12 months have passed since the rejection.
The author cannot therefore use that procedure.
2.4
The author submits that while he lived in Sri Lanka, he worked for the Sewalanka
Foundation as a field officer. Sewalanka is a non-governmental organization “linked” to the
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), helping
displaced Tamils. He was employed by this organization for 13 years. He claims that his
“active role” on the ground in Sri Lanka makes him an easy target of the authorities, who
view the work of the organization as a threat to their reputation. 2
2.5
The author submits that the officers of the Criminal Investigation Department of Sri
Lanka suspect NGO workers of leaking information to the press and media. In August 2011,
Sri Lankan soldiers beat the author’s driver and threatened the author himself after he
refused to give them a lift from a refugee camp. 3 In March 2013, the author received a
death threat from the Department and was ordered to stop collecting information regarding
Tamil women raped in detention.
2.6
The author further submits that even after his arrival in Canada, two officers of the
Criminal Investigation Department visited him in April 2014. He was not at home at the
time.4
The complaint
3.
The author submits that if he is removed to Sri Lanka, he will face the risk of torture
and death at the hands of the authorities there, which would violate the State party’s
obligations under article 6 (1), 7 and 9 (1) of the Convention.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
By a note verbale of 10 July 2015, the State party provided its observations on
admissibility and the merits. It notes that the author claims that if deported to Sri Lanka, he
would face a risk to his life, be at risk of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment, and be at risk of arbitrary detention. The risk would come from
1
2
3
4
2
His request was pending at the time of the initial submission, but subsequently rejected.
The author, describing the “worsening situation” in Sri Lanka, cites several reports from Human
Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Freedom from Torture Group, UNHCR and several newspaper
articles. He also cites the most recent concluding observations of the Committee against Torture
concerning Sri Lanka, in which the Committee stated that the widespread use of torture in police
custody was “continued and consistent”.
The author provides no further details.
The author was questioned regarding this event by the Immigration and Refugee Board. He testified
that he did not know that these two persons were from the Criminal Investigation Department, but
that they spoke Tamil.