CCPR/C/116/D/2347/2014 Committee does not contain any new background material or details about the author’s social background that would provide the Board with a basis for making a different assessment of the case than the one made in its decision of 23 November 2010. 4.10 The State party observes that the Refugee Appeals Board refused to reopen the author’s asylum proceedings on 14 March 2011 since no substantial new information had been submitted. In support of his request to reopen the case, the author submitted before the Board a letter signed by the mayor of the author’s home town. In the letter, the mayor stated that he was aware of the murder of the author’s father and of the fact that the perpetrators had not yet been apprehended. He also stated that he had been contacted by the investigation unit of the police regarding the author’s affiliation with the Tamil Tigers. He concluded that the author would be in danger of being killed or arrested if returned. The author also referred to the fact that the girlfriend of his former employee had been arrested and tortured by the Government in 2008 because she was an active member of LTTE. The author stated that he feared that she had confessed and told the Government that she had carried out activities for LTTE from the author’s shop and had used his shop as a meeting place.15 In this regard, the author submitted to the Board an article published on the Internet by the Sri Lanka Guardian. According to the translation of that article, a girl from Badulla — with a similar name to the author’s former employee’s girlfriend — had been arrested in Colombo under the anti-terrorism legislation and had been subjected to abuse by the military. As a result, she confessed to being an LTTE member and was subsequently imprisoned for two years in Velikadai prison. The author finally reiterated his fear of abuse by the Sri Lankan police because of his alleged link to LTTE due to the above-mentioned photograph. With regard to the latter, the Board referred to its decision of 23 November 2010. With regard to the mayor’s letter, the Board concluded that the letter could not lead to a different assessment of the author’s case for the same reasons given by the Board in its decision of 23 November 2010. Regarding the information concerning the author’s former employee’s girlfriend, the Board observed that the information had only been disclosed late in the proceedings and that there was no possible explanation for that late disclosure. The Board stressed that, although the information concerned events that had occurred prior to the examination of the author’s asylum application, the author had not mentioned this specific ground for seeking asylum to the police, the Danish Immigration Services or the Board itself during the original asylum proceedings. 4.11 The Board again refused to reopen the proceedings on 23 March 2012.16 The author stated, inter alia, that his case had not been adequately examined in the light of the new information submitted. The author also stated that after the Board’s decision of 14 March 2011 he had been hiding and as a result he had become mentally stressed. The Board decided that it was unable to consider the author’s request for the case to be reopened because it was not aware of the author’s place of residence. 17 Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 17 April 2015, the author submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. The author challenges the State party’s allegation that he has not sufficiently 15 16 17 6 The author stated that one day he found books and promotional material of LTTE in the storage room of his shop, but he pretended not to have noticed because he was afraid. Since that day, the author tried to dissociate himself from his employee’s girlfriend. The author did not specify the dates or give a time frame in which these events took place. The author did not mention this decision, neither in his original submission nor in his comments on the State party’s observations. The State party did not provide either the original decision of 23 March 2012 nor its translation. In accordance with section 33 (8) of the Danish Aliens Act.