CAT/C/58/D/599/2014 risk of torture.9 The State party maintains that the complainant has not established the existence of additional grounds to show that he is at a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture if returned to Sri Lanka. 4.16 In addition, the State party submits that the issues raised by the complainant relating to the human rights violations in and the treatment of failed asylum seekers returned to Sri Lanka have been specifically and carefully considered by all domestic processes. In particular, during the complainant’s protection visa application review, material before the authorities included country information from NGOs such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch as well as guidance from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.10 4.17 Furthermore, the Refugee Review Tribunal considered a wide range of country information pertaining to Sri Lanka, including information specifically relating to the risk of persecution of Tamils in Sri Lanka and failed asylum seekers returning to Sri Lanka. The Tribunal accepted that, at least up to the end of the civil war in May 2009, Sri Lankan citizens who were Tamils were at risk of persecutory harm by the authorities because of their Tamil ethnicity. The Tribunal also noted that the security situation had stabilized and the risks posed to Tamils were substantially reduced, as indicated in the 2010 UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines which no longer referred to a presumption of eligibility for protection of Sri Lankans simply on the grounds that they were Tamils originating in the north of the country. The 2012 UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines maintains the assessment set out in the 2010 Guidelines even though it cautions that a merits-based assessment in relation to individual circumstances is still necessary and that Tamil ethnicity and place of origin may still be factors that would increase the vulnerability of persons with other risk profiles whose protection claims warrant particularly close attention and that the risk profiles listed should not be considered as exhaustive. The Tribunal did not find that the information before it indicated that Sri Lankans who are of Tamil ethnicity, whether or not they are from areas formerly under the control of LTTE, faced serious harm simply because of their ethnicity, or that the complainant faced a real risk of serious harm for such a reason. 4.18 The Tribunal accepted that, since failed asylum seekers would have generally left Sri Lanka illegally, they would be dealt with under the relevant Sri Lankan laws that are of general application. The Tribunal reviewed the submissions, the material cited in the complainant’s decision record and UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines as well as considered personal risk factors. It accepted that, in recent times, some of those returned to Sri Lanka had reportedly suffered torture and other abuses at the hands of the authorities, but that those cases overwhelmingly involved people who had some form of connection to LTTE or who were suspected of having such links or who were criminal suspects. However, the Tribunal did not consider that this would be the case for the complainant. In the light of the country information available and the complainant’s personal circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that the complainant would not suffer harm on return to Sri Lanka owing to the fact that he had unsuccessfully sought a protection visa in Australia or that he was part of the particular social group of failed asylum seekers. The Tribunal reviewed the reports provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and did not consider that the treatment of returnees who had left Sri Lanka illegally, either upon arrival at the airport or while held in remand awaiting a bail hearing or when before the courts, could reasonable be seen as constituting serious harm amounting to persecution. 9 10 See G.R.B. v. Sweden, para. 6.3. See Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from Sri Lanka (July 2010 and December 2012). 7