CCPR/C/116/D/2347/2014 established that his return to Sri Lanka would constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. His challenge is based on the fact that the police searched for him in 2009 and that his former employee’s girlfriend was imprisoned in 2008 because of her connection to LTTE. 5.2 The author emphasizes that the changes that have taken place in Sri Lanka since May 2009, when the civil war ended, are complex and that the Government of Sri Lanka is concerned about the risk of a resurgence coming from the diaspora. The author also refers to the new guidelines of the Home Office of the United Kingdom, in which it is noted that on 21 March 2014 the Sri Lankan authorities published a list of 400 banned individuals and Tamil groups suspected of constituting a terrorist threat to the country. 18 The author points out that the list includes several individuals with residence in Denmark. 5.3 The author refers to the UNHCR guidelines according to which people with a profile as former LTTE supporters who may never have undergone military training but were involved in sheltering or transporting may be at risk of persecution if they return to Sri Lanka.19 In the same vein, the author reiterates that recent reports refer to cases of former Sri Lankan (in particular Tamil) asylum seekers who were detained and ill-treated or tortured after having been forcibly returned to Sri Lanka upon rejection of their asylum claims, or after their voluntary return to Sri Lanka. 20 5.4 The author refers to a finding of the Swiss Refugee Council highlighting that the State machinery of Sri Lanka is extremely paranoid and tries to contain any resurgence of LTTE.21 He adds that according to the Swiss Refugee Council there are even suspicions directed at Tamils with a low profile and that people who return from abroad are often suspected of maintaining links to LTTE and are particularly threatened. 22 5.5 The author holds that since 2009, when he arrived in Denmark, and since the Refugee Appeals Board rejected his asylum request in 2010, there is new information underlining the severity of the situation for Tamil asylum seekers forcibly or voluntarily returned to Sri Lanka from western countries. 5.6 Regarding the State party’s references to the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in N.A. v. the United Kingdom, T.N. v. Denmark, T.N. and S.N. v. Denmark, S.S. and others v. Denmark, P.K. v. Denmark and N.S. v. Denmark,23 the author stresses the dates of the judgments. The author also reiterates his imputed link to LTTE. 5.7 The author recalls that in its decision of 23 November 2010 the Refugee Appeals Board considered the substance of the author’s statements as fact. He adds that even if it could be considered as a fact that the police was effectively in possession of the photograph of the author carrying a weapon with the LTTE logo, as the Board has observed, the Board has also found that the author failed to substantiate that he had become so conspicuous as to be at risk of harm if he returned to Sri Lanka. The author infers from the above that the 18 19 20 21 22 23 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Home Office, Country Information and Guidance: Sri Lanka — Tamil Separatism (28 August 2014), paras. 1.3.10 and 1.3.11. UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum Seekers from Sri Lanka, p. 27 (4). The author refers to the UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum Seekers from Sri Lanka, p. 8. Adrian Schuster, Sri Lanka: Current Situation (Swiss Refugee Council, 15 November 2012), chap. 4.4. Ibid. T.N. v. Denmark, application No. 20594/08; T.N. and S.N. v. Denmark, application No. 36517/08; S.S. and others v. Denmark, application No. 54703/08; P.K. v. Denmark, application No. 54705/08; and N.S. v. Denmark, application No. 58359/08. 7