CAT/C/57/D/628/2014 name. For these reasons, he has a well-founded fear that he would be ill-treated upon return. The complainant further submits that the domestic authorities actually found that he was in need of protection at the time when he left Sri Lanka in 2008 and that only on account of the fact that EPDP had lost its influence in Jaffna had the authorities concluded that he no longer required protection. He also adds that EPDP is still active as a paramilitary group and exerts control in Jaffna with the tacit approval of the Sri Lankan army.11 5.2 On 24 February 2016, the State party reiterated its view that the present complaint is inadmissible due to lack of substantiation and is without merit. It observes that, in his comments of 29 June 2015, the complainant confirmed that he had not provided any new information in the context of his complaint before the Committee. It further notes that it appears that the complainant claims that he left Sri Lanka illegally. In this regard, the State party notes that the complainant travelled to Colombo without experiencing any problems, that he left Colombo airport without any difficulty and that he was able to stay in Colombo prior to his departure without experiencing any problems. As regards the background information on Sri Lanka, the State party notes that the current background information does not provide any basis for reaching a different assessment of the complainant’s asylum case. In this respect, the State party refers to country information and guidance on Sri Lanka of the Home Office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,12 in which it is stated that a Tamil’s low-level membership of or participation in LTTE is not sufficient to create a real risk or a reasonable degree of likelihood that the relevant person would attract adverse attention on his return to Sri Lanka. Further, according to the thematic memorandum published by the Norwegian Country of Origin Information Centre (Landinfo) on 3 July 2015,13 the overall security situation in Sri Lanka has significantly improved since May 2009, although the country is still under tight military control, and Landinfo has not received any information that Tamils returning to Sri Lanka have been exposed to particular security arrangements, subjected to torture or otherwise ill-treated. 5.3 Finally, in support of its assertion that the present complaint is unfounded and without merit, the State party refers to the recent jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee. In P.T. v. Denmark, the Committee noted that “important weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party, unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice”. 14 Further, in K. v. Denmark, the Committee stated that the Danish Refugee Appeals Board “thoroughly examined each of the author’s claims, and particularly analysed the alleged threats allegedly received by the author in [his country of origin], and found them to be inconsistent and implausible on several grounds. The author challenges the assessment of evidence and the factual conclusions reached by the RAB, but he does not explain why that assessment would be arbitrary or otherwise amount to a denial of justice”. 15 In addition, in N. v. Denmark, the Human Rights Committee concluded that “the author has not explained why the decision by the Refugee Appeals Board would be contrary to this standard, nor has he provided substantial grounds to support his claim that his removal to the Islamic Republic of Iran would expose him to a real risk of irreparable harm in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 11 12 13 14 15 8 The complainant refers to the following article: “WikiLeaks: EPDP’s targeted killing method with Govt Military – Jaffna government agent reveals secrets”, Colombo Herald (17 September 2013). “Country information and guidance: Sri Lanka—Tamil separatism” (United Kingdom Home Office, 28 August 2014). “Sri Lanka: Sikkerhetssituasjonen, LTTE og retur til hjemlandet” (Sri Lanka: security situation, the LTTE and return to country of origin) (3 July 2015). See Human Rights Committee communication No. 2272/2013, P.T. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 1 April 2015, para. 7.3. See communication No. 2393/2014, K. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 16 July 2015, para. 7.5.