CAT/C/61/D/713/2015
parliamentary election campaign in April 2010 by addressing the meetings, distributing
leaflets and pamphlets and generally promoting the Alliance. While studying for a
Bachelor’s degree in political science, the complainant was continuously harassed by the
paramilitary groups Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal (TMVP) and Eelam People’s
Democratic Party (EPDP). They threatened that if he did not join them, he would be
abducted by a “white van”. The complainant was forced to quit his studies. On 15 April
2012 and 1 May 2012, groups of unknown men came in a white van to the family house,
calling for the complainant and his brother. The complainant fled through the back door.
On 2 May 2012, the complainant filed a written report with the police, but no investigation
took place. The complainant left the country after the second incident.
2.2
On 18 May 2012, the complainant arrived in Australia and was detained at
Christmas Island. On 23 August 2012, he applied for a protection visa claiming that the
lack of security in Sri Lanka for young Tamils, in general, and from the white vans, and his
refusal to join the paramilitary groups would result in his being harassed and possibly killed,
that he would be in danger owing to the long-standing dispute with the Sri Lanka Army
over their occupation of his family home between 1997 and 2001, and that he was a
member of a particular social group — a failed asylum seeker who had left the country
illegally. He claimed that upon return to Sri Lanka, he would be detained at the airport and
tortured. The Australian Department of Immigration and Border Protection refused to grant
him a protection visa on 29 October 2012. The complainant applied for a merits review to
the Refugee Review Tribunal on 1 November 2012. The Tribunal upheld the Immigration
Department decision on 28 June 2013. On 24 July 2014, the complainant appealed to the
Federal Circuit Court for a judicial review of the Tribunal decision. The Federal Circuit
Court dismissed his appeal on 28 July 2014. The complainant requested Ministerial
intervention on 28 July 2014. On 15 September 2015, the Minister decided not to intervene.
The complaint
3.
The complainant claims to have suffered persecution and white van abduction
attempts by paramilitary groups, TMVP and EPDP (see para. 2.1 above). He claims that if
returned to Sri Lanka, he would suffer torture at the hands of the Criminal Investigation
Department and risk abduction by TMVP, in violation of article 3 of the Convention. He
also claims that, because of his Tamil ethnicity, owing to his illegal departure from Sri
Lanka and the fact that he would be a failed asylum seeker, he will be taken into custody by
the Sri Lankan authorities upon arrival at Colombo Airport. Conditions in Negombo
Remand Prison are well documented as cramped, unsanitary and unhygienic; the
complainant claims that that alone constitutes degrading treatment, regardless of the length
of time spent there on remand.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
On 10 May 2016, the State party submitted that the complaint should be ruled
inadmissible as manifestly unfounded. However, should the Committee consider the
complainant’s allegations admissible, they should be dismissed as being without merit.
4.2
The State party submits that the complainant’s claims before the Committee were
thoroughly considered by a series of domestic decision makers. In the interview with the
domestic authorities the complainant claimed that if returned to Sri Lanka, he would be
arrested, interrogated, imprisoned and beaten or killed by the Sri Lanka Army, the Criminal
Investigation Department, the paramilitary wing of TMVP, the police or other political
groups supporting the Government of Sri Lanka in identifying supporters of the Liberation
Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). He claimed that he was very likely to be detained for long
periods without charge and interrogated under torture upon return to Sri Lanka.
4.3
The complainant applied for a protection visa on 23 August 2012 and was
interviewed — with the assistance of a Tamil interpreter — on 28 August 2012. On 29
October 2012, the complainant’s application was refused. The decision maker considered
all the claims that the complainant raised in his submission to the Committee. The decision
maker assessed the complainant’s claims with reference to the country information on Sri
Lanka and found that there was not a real risk that he would be persecuted if returned to Sri
Lanka on the basis of his race, political opinion or for being a young Tamil man returning
2