CAT/C/30/D/197/2002 page 5 4.4 The State party emphasizes that, since the end of the 1980s, the petitioner has not been politically active, nor has he participated in the activities of the LTTE. Thus, there are no substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture in his country of origin. 4.5 Although the State party concedes that the medical reports largely support the petitioner’s statements concerning his injuries, it argues that they indicate that some healing has already occurred, and that the petitioner no longer requires anti-depression medication. It acknowledges that he still needs regular psychiatric treatment and physiotherapy, but submits that the relevance of the medical reports must be assessed in conjunction with the other facts of the case. 4.6 The State party submits that the petitioner does not display symptoms that could not be treated in his country of origin, and that his state of health is no obstacle to the enforcement of the deportation decision. Considering that the events which allegedly affected the petitioner’s health took place in the 1980s, his state of health does not provide substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture in his country of origin. 4.7 The State party submits that, in the past few years, the human rights situation in Sri Lanka has significantly improved. It refers to a document prepared by the UNHCR in 1999 to the EU High Level Working Group on Asylum and Migration, which stated that asylum-seekers who have not been found to fulfil refugee criteria may be returned to Sri Lanka. It refers to the ceasefire reached on 23 February 2002, with which the armed forces of Sri Lanka and the LTTE have since complied. Since then, residents need no longer report at military checkpoints. It also refers to a statement by a UNHCR representative on 21 May 2002, according to which 71,000 Tamil refugees returned home that year, including more than half of whom returned to the Jaffna area. In the State party’s view, therefore, in light of the continuing improvement in the situation in Sri Lanka, there is no foreseeable, real and personal risk that the petitioner will be tortured on return. Petitioner’s comments on the State party’s submission 5.1 In his response, the petitioner reiterates the facts as stated in his initial submission and provides new information. He submits that in August 1985 he buried arms belonging to the Eelam Liberation Organization (TELO), another organization banned by the LTTE, in the garden of his family home. As the LTTE in effect controls the lives of Jaffna residents, the petitioner is afraid of the serious consequences both he and his family will face should the LTTE receive information on these arms. He claims that the LTTE consider the hiding of weapons and ammunition as a serious offence against the organization and would react harshly to such an act. In addition, as this act constitutes a crime under Sri Lankan law he risks being prosecuted by the authorities. He claims that it was due to fear that he did not provide this information during the asylum procedure. In only bringing up this matter at this stage, the petitioner refers to the jurisprudence of the Committee, with which a victim of torture cannot be expected to give a full and coherent account of his past experiences during the asylum procedure. He also refers to the acceptance by the UNHCR that a person, who owing to his experiences was afraid of the authorities in his country of origin, may be distrustful of all authorities. 5.2 In addition, the petitioner submits that after escaping from Sri Lanka he received information that some of his Tamil friends had been killed, some had joined the army and some