CCPR/C/116/D/2347/2014 v. Denmark.12 The State party explains that in the latter the applicant had been forced to support LTTE financially and had been detained only once, in 1998, while in the former the applicant had been detained six times during the period from 1990 to 1997 and during his last detention his photograph and fingerprints had been taken. 4.4 The State party notes that the author legally left Sri Lanka on 24 November 2009, carrying a valid passport and a temporary visa to enter Denmark legally. The State party also notes that the author has never been detained or fingerprinted by the Sri Lankan authorities. Moreover, the State party emphasizes that the information concerning the author’s asylum request in Denmark and the refusal of its request are both confidential. Therefore, the State party concludes that it cannot be assumed that the Sri Lankan authorities are familiar with this information. 4.5 The State party further notes that the Refugee Appeals Board made a specific and individual risk assessment13 of the author’s situation using background material concerning the situation of ethnic Tamils in Sri Lanka. On the basis of that assessment, the Board concluded that the author failed to substantiate in a convincing manner that the police was in possession of a photograph showing the author carrying a weapon with an LTTE logo in the background. The Board also observed that, even if it could be considered as a fact that the police was effectively in possession of that photograph, the Board would have found that the applicant had failed to substantiate the existence of risk of torture if returned to Sri Lanka. The State party finally reiterates that the current background material on Sri Lanka does not contain any information that would lead it to assume that Tamils who do not have links to LTTE will be at risk of persecution as a consequence of their ethnicity.14 4.6 The State party further refers to the author’s statement about the photograph of him carrying a weapon with an LTTE logo in the background and his alleged link to LTTE. In this regard, the State party stresses that it is unlikely that the author’s former employee would have demanded money from and threatened the author with sending the photograph to the police only in December 2008, considering that, according to the author’s own statement, the photograph had been taken in 2006. The State party adds that, also according to the author’s statement, the former employee was supposed to have sent said photograph to the police in June or July 2009, after the civil war in Sri Lanka had ended. 4.7 With regard to the author’s allegation that he fears being killed by his wife’s family if he returns to his home town, the Refugee Appeals Board considered that conflict as a private-law conflict. The Board added that the applicant must seek protection from the Sri Lankan authorities against eventual conflicts with his wife’s family. 4.8 The Refugee Appeals Board gave some importance to the fact that the author had entered Denmark on 25 November 2009, but he did not apply for asylum until the day his temporary visa expired on 19 February 2010. The State party observes that the author stated that he was not aware of the possibility of applying for asylum. 4.9 Finally, the State party considers that there is no reason to question the thorough assessment of the author’s situation made by the Refugee Appeals Board, according to which there is no indication that he will be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment upon return to Sri Lanka. The State party concludes that returning the author to Sri Lanka would not constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The State party observes that the Board has found that the communication to the 12 13 14 T.N. and S.N. v. Denmark, application No. 36517/08. The State party refers in this respect to the UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum Seekers from Sri Lanka, p. 27. Ibid. 5