CCPR/C/121/D/2487/2014
measures, requested the State party to refrain from removing the author to Sri Lanka while
his case was under consideration by the Committee.
1.3
On 3 July 2017, the Committee, acting through its Special Rapporteur on new
communications and interim measures, denied the State party’s request to lift the interim
measures.
The facts as presented by the author
2.1
The author indicates that he used to work as a cook and as a sailor in Sri Lanka. On
30 May 2011, he was present at a demonstration in the “free trade zone” area, along with
his girlfriend and his cousin, R.C., who were working in the area. The police suddenly
started shooting at the demonstrators and his cousin was killed. The author witnessed his
cousin’s death during the shootout. The author arranged for an ambulance to take his cousin
to hospital, but it was too late and he died.1
2.2
The author provided eyewitness evidence to the trade union leaders of the free trade
zone companies, who had decided to take legal action against the police for the deadly
attack. The Catholic priest of the area also made a complaint to the Asian Human Rights
Commission.2
2.3
On 10 June 2011, the author started receiving threats by telephone telling him to
stop his “activities against the Government and the police”. He ignored these threats as he
wanted to bring his cousin’s murderers to justice.
2.4
On 28 June 2011, four men forcibly entered the author’s home, beat him, tied him
up and blindfolded him. They took the author to another location and questioned him about
the information he had given to the trade union lawyers. During his detention, the author
was verbally abused and beaten until he lost consciousness. When he regained
consciousness, the author found himself in a three-wheeler taxi, whose driver had found
him on the side of a road and drove him home.
2.5
The following day, the author’s parents took him to the Negombo hospital. They
were told that the author should have filed a complaint to the police prior to going to the
hospital. Thereafter, the author decided to visit an indigenous medical doctor. 3
2.6
The author’s father hired a lawyer to represent his son. When the lawyer contacted
the Sri Lankan police, he was told that the author’s life would be in danger should he stay
in Sri Lanka. The author’s father decided to send him to Kandy to stay with family
members. He then paid a “private ship” to take the author to Algeria, where he joined a ship
sailing to Canada.
2.7
On 27 November 2011, the author arrived in Canada and on 1 December he left the
ship with the intention of filing a claim for asylum. He waited for the ship to leave the port,
fearing that he would be forced to return on it. On 16 December, he submitted his claim for
international protection. However, the captain of the ship had already notified the Canadian
authorities of the author’s absence and an exclusion order was issued against him in
abstentia on 13 December, making him ineligible to claim refugee protection.4 On 6 March
2012, the author was notified by a Canada Border Services Agency officer that his refugee
claim was inadmissible.
2.8
The author filed an application for leave to seek judicial review at the Federal Court
of the decision. On 20 September 2012, the leave application was granted and a hearing
was scheduled for 11 December.
1
2
3
4
2
Author’s statement filed with his pre-removal risk assessment, 20 September 2012.
Ibid.
The author provided a handwritten medical certificate in the form of a brief note, stating that the
author was treated from 1 to 7 July 2011 “for his physical injuries due to swelling”.
The State party explains that, according to section 223 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations, an exclusion order is a type of removal order, and such an order was issued in the
present case pursuant to subsections 44 (2) and 228 (1) (c) (v) of the Regulations.