CAT/C/67/D/723/2015
The facts as submitted by the complainant
2.1
The complainant was born in the village of Udappu, North Western province, Sri
Lanka. He is a citizen of Sri Lanka of Tamil ethnicity. He worked as a fisherman from 1997
to 2012. The complainant asserts that he was assaulted by members of the Sri Lanka Army
and the Sri Lanka Navy several times. He asserts in particular that, each time he went
fishing between 2001 and 2012, he was detained and assaulted by members of the security
services of Sri Lanka, the purpose of these assaults being to identify whether members of
the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (Tamil Tigers) were joining fishing expeditions.
2.2
The complainant submits that, in 2011, intruders known as “grease men” were
regularly breaking into homes in his village. They would attack the residents and harass
women sexually or physically. In September 2011, the complainant and another person
came across a grease man. The complainant accosted the grease man, attempted to
apprehend him and struck him with a wooden pole. The grease man escaped, however, and
the complainant chased him into a nearby naval camp, where he disappeared.
2.3
The complainant claims that he was then surrounded by Navy officers, who
questioned him, took down his details and told him to leave. After this incident, the officers
repeatedly summoned him to the above-mentioned Navy camp. On another occasion, he
was detained for a whole day and was told that he had been lying about chasing a grease
man into the camp. The officers threatened to kill him. In 2012, while he was fishing, his
nets drifted into an area restricted for the use of Sinhalese fishermen. Although the nets
were returned to the complainant, he was then threatened by a group of Sinhalese
fishermen.
2.4
After the incident involving the fishing nets, which was aggravated by the general
mistreatment of the Tamils by the Government of Sri Lanka, the complainant decided to
flee Sri Lanka for Australia. The complainant claims that, after his departure, the State
Intelligence Service of Sri Lanka periodically visited his house, inquiring about his
whereabouts.1
2.5
On 16 July 2012, the complainant arrived at Christmas Island by boat. On 14
February 2013, he lodged an application for a protection visa, which was refused by a
delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship on 7
September 2013. The complainant then applied for a review before the Refugee Review
Tribunal. On 22 July 2014, the Tribunal refused to grant the complainant a protection visa.
2.6
The complainant sought a review of that decision at the Federal Circuit Court, but
that application was dismissed on 4 June 2015. He appealed against this decision, but the
Federal Court of Australia rejected that appeal on 27 August 2015. On 8 December 2015,
the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection declined to exercise his power to grant
a protection visa. The complainant therefore claims that he has exhausted all domestic
remedies.
The 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 suffer torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment at the hands of the authorities of Sri Lanka. In particular, the complainant
alleges that he was a witness to the Sri Lanka Navy covering for an individual involved in
the above-mentioned grease man activities. He further claims to be at risk of being tortured
and killed by the Sri Lanka Army and Navy because of his status as a witness to war
crimes. He mentions in particular that, on an unspecified date, which may be presumed to
be in 2009, he witnessed Tamil civilians being forced to run from the Army and being shot
from behind. Referring to several newspaper articles, he asserts that the then Prime Minister
of Sri Lanka rejected the proposal that an international probe be launched into allegations
of war crimes. Hence, according to the complainant, there is a high risk of his being
pressured by the Army not to testify should an international investigation commence.
1
2
The complainant refers to a letter written by his wife, evidencing these visits.