2.14On 2 July 2001, the District Court of The Hague dismissed the appeal against the decision by IND of 20 May 1999 as unfounded and declared the application for interim measures inadmissible. It considered that the complainant’s allegations lacked credibility because of the contradictory statements about the pregnancies of his wife and because of his failure to state the truth about his stay in Mullaitivu. The Court also held that no grounds existed for applying the policy on post-traumatic stress disorder and that the complainant did not suffer any disadvantage from the fact that IND had rendered its decision without having waited for medical advice from BMA. Moreover, the Court considered that the complainant did not belong to the category of persons who would be at risk of being treated in violation of article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms if returned to Sri Lanka. Comments by counsel 3.1Counsel claims that the findings of the District Court do not rule out that the complainant runs a substantial risk of being subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment upon return to Sri Lanka and, therefore, the Netherlands would be violating article 3 of the Convention if he were returned to that country. 3.2As to the complainant’s credibility, counsel submits that the essential part of his statements relates to the time when he was detained in the Trincomalee military camp rather than to the question of when his wife was pregnant or when she gave birth. 3.3Counsel complains about the circumstances under which the second interview was conducted by IND and about the manner in which the complainant was confronted with the inconsistencies in his statements about the pregnancies of his wife and about his hiding in Mullaitivu. 3.4Counsel submits that, apart from the medical advice by BMA, IND should have considered the medical report by the Amnesty International medical research group which, according to counsel, corroborates the complainant’s allegations and confirms that he is traumatized. Counsel claims that the benefit of the doubt should be applied in favour of the complainant since unequivocal evidence hardly ever exists in asylum cases. 3.5According to counsel, the complainant cannot be returned to the part of Sri Lanka which is controlled by LTTE, because the situation in that area is generally unsafe owing to military operations by LTTE as well as by the Sri Lankan army, and because the complainant has to fear sanctions for having left that area without LTTE approval. By the same token, the complainant cannot, in counsel’s view, be sent to the south of Sri Lanka where he would be at risk of being tortured since (a) his past as a well-known karate teacher would raise suspicion of involvement with LTTE; (b) the scars on his body might lead to the conclusion that he was involved in the armed struggle of or at least trained by LTTE; and (c) his Tamil origin, his inability to speak Sinhalese and the fact that he neither has an ID nor a valid reason for wanting to stay in the south increase the risk of being arrested, and eventually tortured, by the Sri Lankan police.c 3.6Counsel concludes that upon return to Sri Lanka, the complainant would be exposed to a substantial risk of being arrested and detained for a period longer than the regular 48 to 72 hours for which Tamils are frequently detained following identity checks. According to counsel, the risk of being tortured during such a prolonged period of detention is generally high. The State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1On 22 April 2002, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the complaint. The State party does not contest the admissibility of the complaint. 4.2The State party submits that owing to the high population density in the Netherlands, the admission of asylum-seekers to the country is limited to three grounds: (a) refugee status under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees; (b) the preservation of essential Dutch interests; and (c) compelling reasons of a humanitarian nature. Refugee status under (a) requires wellfounded reasons to fear persecution on the basis of religious, ideological or political convictions or nationality or on the basis of membership of a particular race or social group. In determining whether a person is a refugee, the Dutch authorities also assess whether return to the country of origin would conflict with the State party’s obligations under article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and under article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Asylum applications are dealt with by IND, which is subordinate to the Ministry of Justice. After a first and a second interview with the applicant, the IND officer who conducted the second interview prepares a report on which the applicant may submit comments. Based on a legal presumption, failure by IND to take a decision on the asylum application within six months constitutes a negative decision against which the applicant may file an objection. If the applicant invokes medical grounds for his asylum claim, medical advice with the legal value of expert opinion may be sought from the Medical Assessment Section (BMA) of the Ministry of Justice. Pending the opinion of BMA, the expulsion of the applicant, if ordered, may be suspended. 4.3With regard to the human rights situation in Sri Lanka, the State party refers to three decisions of the District Court of The Hague and the 1996-2001 country reports by the Netherlands Ministry for Foreign Affairs which state that the return of rejected Tamil asylum seekers to the Government-controlled areas of the west, the centre and the south of Sri Lanka - where no registration with the police or another authority is required in order to settle - was still a responsible course of action. However, the 2000 report also states that in these areas Tamils are frequently detained for up to 72 hours in the context of identity checks. Moreover, in Colombo, Tamils were occasionally harassed by the Sinhalese population and sometimes tortured by the police when suspected of involvement with LTTE. The country reports also identify a number of risk factors which contribute either to (a) the general risk of being arrested and detained for 48-72 hours following an identity check; or (b) the aggravated risk of being detained for a longer period of time, in which case the risk of torture increases substantially. Risk factors under (a) include (i) youth; (ii) poor knowledge of Sinhalese; and (iii) Tamil origin. Risk factors under (b) include (i) recent arrival in Colombo from one of the country’s war zones; (ii) no valid identity documents; (iii) data in police files indicating that a person might be involved in LTTE activities or might have knowledge of