CAT/C/23/D/96/1997 page 5 4.2 The State party points out that in the course of the domestic proceedings, a careful assessment had been made of the general human rights situation in Sri Lanka and the feasibility of return to Sri Lanka. According to the State party’s available information, the so-called “Black Cats death squads” were active in the years 1988-1990, when the United National Party was in power. After the People’s Alliance came into power in 1994, the human rights situation in Sri Lanka improved and all previous restrictions on the freedom of the press were withdrawn. In September 1995, when the armed conflict between the Government and the LTTE erupted again in the north, censorship was introduced on reporting about military operations in that area. Although the state of emergency and the censorship of reports of military operations in the north places constraints on journalists, the State party states that it has no information about journalists being harassed in connection with war reporting. 4.3 In view of the author’s statements and documentary evidence, the State party does not doubt that the author is a photographer and that he took photographs from 1990 onwards, whether or not instructed to do so by various political parties, of victims of human rights violations, and that these photographs were published in various newspapers. The State party also considers it plausible that the author was in fact abducted because of these activities. 4.4 The State party wishes to draw the attention of the Committee to the discrepancies between the arguments and statements on which the communication is based and the statements made by the author in the initial domestic proceedings. In the domestic proceedings the author consistently stated that he had been abducted in March 1991 and held captive for 15 days. It was not until after the domestic proceedings had been concluded that the author stated, through Amnesty International, that the abduction and alleged torture had taken place not in March 1991 but on 8 October 1992. The author has not explained this inconsistency, although it is important for an assessment of his account. Had he been abducted in 1991 it would be curious that it was not until 8 October 1992 that men approached him and urged him to close his studio. In any event, the author has not supplied any information about the period between March 1991 and 8 October 1992. His explanation for this, namely that he had been unable to communicate adequately due to the absence of a Sinhalese interpreter, is not credible. The author’s national case file makes it clear that his command of English is sufficient for him to have been able to supplement his story accordingly. 4.5 Furthermore, when the author lost his appeal he also changed the statement he had made during the domestic proceedings that he did not decide to leave Sri Lanka until May 1993. He apparently stated to Amnesty International that he had already decided to leave his country after his alleged abduction on 8 October 1992. He has not supplied an adequate explanation for this inconsistency either. In the State party’s opinion, the author probably changed his story to make it more logically consistent. 4.6 In addition, the State party points out that from the moment of his release in October 1992 until the date of departure in May 1993, the author was able to avoid any further problems by moving to a different part of the country. The State party submits that it does not have enough information to ascertain whether the author was obliged to do this work in secret, as he maintains. Finally, the State party argues that the author’s photographic activity related to exposing of the misdeeds of the previous United National Party regime, which would not put him at risk for persecution from the present Government.