CAT/C/58/D/600/2014 attention on return, or that would delay his release after the security checks on his return to Sri Lanka. The ministerial intervention assessment considered that, while failed asylum seekers were detained on return to Sri Lanka under laws relating to leaving the country illegally, returnees have immediately been granted bail on personal recognizance by the magistrate, with the requirement that a family member acts as guarantor. The complainant had family members residing in Sri Lanka and it was reasonable to expect that his family would assist him with bail in such circumstances. 4.14 On 31 March 2016, the State party reiterated its observations and maintained that there were no substantial grounds for believing that the complainant faced a real risk of irreparable harm if returned to Sri Lanka and therefore considered the Committee’s request for interim measures to be unwarranted. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 7 April 2016, the complainant submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. He recalls the facts on which the present complaint is based and states that he fears for his life, as the soldiers who were looking for him made “all attempts to silence him as an eyewitness of their gruesome crime”. He claims that he will be detained and interrogated at the airport and that, at that time or at any moment thereafter, it could come to light that he was an eyewitness to a crime committed by Sri Lanka Army soldiers. There is, therefore, a real chance that he may even be summoned as a witness in any inquiry regarding that crime or in the event that the soldiers are prosecuted. He would then be targeted by other Sri Lanka Army personnel and would not be able to rely on police protection. As a young Tamil male from the area previously controlled by LTTE and who had left Sri Lanka illegally, he would be imputed with strong LTTE links either in order to silence him or in revenge for having exposed Army personnel by giving evidence and to discourage others from coming forward to give such evidence. 5.2 The complainant further submits that even the current Government in Sri Lanka has not indicated any intention to repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act or to release Tamil political prisoners who have been detained in camps for long periods of time without charge. With reference to the country situation reports on Sri Lanka, 6 he adds that the witnesses of war crimes and those imputed with a pro-LTTE political profile suffer a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture. This risk is personal and present for him. Therefore, the State party will be violating its obligations under article 3 of the Convention if it deports him to Sri Lanka. 5.3 The complainant acknowledges the fact that he did not provide any evidence to corroborate his claims, other than the death certificate of the woman whose murder he had witnessed. He submits, however, that a careful study of the facts on which the present complaint is based would establish that “this is one of those unfortunate cases where it is impossible to produce further evidence” to substantiate claims. He was the only eyewitness to the murder and the other persons present at the scene were the perpetrators of the crime themselves. In the particular circumstances of his case, it is unreasonable to reject his claims on the ground of unfoundedness or inability to produce strong evidence. With reference to the UNHCR Handbook,7 he claims that the Australian authorities should have granted him the “benefit of the doubt”. 6 7 Reference is made to UNHCR, UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from Sri Lanka (Geneva, 21 December 2012), pp. 5, 13-14; Human Rights Watch, World Report 2014: Sri Lanka; and CAT/C/LKA/CO/3-4, para. 19. See UNHCR Handbook, paras. 196 and 203. 7