CAT/C/57/D/628/2014 The Committee accordingly concludes that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate his claim of violation of article 7 for the purposes of admissibility and finds his communication inadmissible pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol.”16 5.4 On 22 March 2016, the complainant submitted that his complaint was admissible. He maintained that he had well-founded fears that he would risk being subjected to torture upon return to Sri Lanka and noted that the State party’s authorities had based the decision to deport him on “outdated and insufficient background information”, failing to reopen his asylum case when “new reports and recommendations came forward after March 2012”. The complainant further noted that the decision of the Danish Refugee Appeals Board was not subjected to further appeal, and submitted that it was based on “information which was later proved to be wrong” and thereby amounted to “denial of justice” in the complainant’s case. In this connection, the complainant submitted that his explanations before the State party’s authorities in general were considered to be consistent and credible, and that he had actually been found to be in need of protection when he left Sri Lanka in 2008. 5.5 The complainant stated that the State party’s immigration authorities had decided to reject his asylum application on the grounds that EPDP was no longer connected to the Sri Lankan authorities and that the general risk of torture of returned Tamils was at the time considered to be low. However, he argued that “many reports have later proved both [grounds] to be questionable”. Therefore, the State party’s immigration authorities should reopen his asylum case and examine his application in light of the most recent background information on Sri Lanka. The complainant maintained that there had been “no change of power” in Sri Lanka since he left the country and that “the Board” had not presented any evidence that he would not face any danger upon return. In that regard, the complainant submitted that in 2013 and 2014 the State party had granted asylum to “10 out of 16 asylum seekers from Sri Lanka”; five rejections had been based on lack of credibility, which, according to the complainant, indicated that “the Board in similar cases now acknowledges a strong need for protection”. 5.6 The complainant submitted that torture and other forms of ill-treatment were still widespread in Sri Lanka and, given his background, he was at risk of being subjected to torture or other degrading treatment upon return. He added that, in its submission to the Committee, the State party had omitted important facts. According to Landinfo, in 2015 “arbitrary arrests and detention are still reported and that the Sri Lankan government still considers LTTE as ‘a security risk’”. According to Freedom from Torture, an organization based in the United Kingdom, it had gathered “evidence of 160 (torture) cases up (until) September 2014”. The complainant further provided extracts from a number of “sources”,17 demonstrating a “different picture” of Sri Lanka than the one provided by the State party. The complainant reiterated that he was not a “high profile person” in Sri Lanka, but that he had assisted the LTTE Sea Tigers. In that regard, he reiterated his story18 and submitted that he had left Sri Lanka illegally and that he had been able to leave Sri Lanka without any problems as he was not a “highly [sic] profile person”. In conclusion, he noted that all returnees in Sri Lanka were thoroughly questioned upon return and later detained, and that a mere suspicion of being connected to LTTE could lead to “severe torture and degrading treatment”. 5.7 On 19 April 2016, the State party submitted further observations. It referred to its previous observations and specific argumentation concerning the present case and reiterated 16 17 18 See communication No. 2426/2014, N. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 23 July 2015, para. 6.6. Amnesty International, the Swiss Refugee Council, the authorities of Canada, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and Human Rights Watch, among others. See paras. 2.1 and 2.2 above. 9