CAT/C/23/D/96/1997 page 7 5.4 With respect to the medical evidence, counsel submits that the State party should have conducted its own medical examination in view of the author’s claim that he had been subjected to torture. A medical examination, conducted by the Bureau of Medical Advice of the Ministry of Justice, could have demonstrated that the torture to which the author was subjected in Sri Lanka had resulted in a post-traumatic stress disorder. 5.5 With reference to the general political situation in Sri Lanka, counsel draws the attention of the Committee to the fact that in view of the uncertain and dangerous situation prevailing in the country, Dutch authorities have for a period of time refrained from deporting Sri Lankan asylum-seekers. In the present situation there is no guarantee that the author would not risk persecution from the Government now in power in Sri Lanka, nor that he would be effectively protected by the Government should he be persecuted or tortured by these previously in power. Additional observations by the State party and counsel 6.1 On 14 December 1998 the State party provided the Committee with additional observations in response to counsel’s comments. It pointed out that counsel’s comments regarding the non-deportation of Sri Lankan asylum-seekers was incorrect. In spring 1998 the State Secretary for Justice considered it unnecessary to change the policy on expelling asylum-seekers in connection with the situation in Sri Lanka. On 23 June 1998, the State Secretary for Justice informed the Lower House of Parliament that rejected Tamil asylum-seekers would not be expelled from the Netherlands, pending a court judgement on an appeal brought by a Tamil and in the light of the injunction granted in that case. The decision not to expel this category of person during a certain period of time was thus a procedural matter. In a judgement of 9 October 1998, the Hague District Court considered that the State Secretary for Justice could in all reasonableness have concluded that expelling rejected Tamil asylum-seekers to Sri Lanka could not be construed as a particularly harsh measure. The present policy of returning Sri Lankan asylum-seekers is therefore still in place. 6.2 The State party further informed the Committee that on 17 November 1998, the State Secretary for Justice informed counsel that the author might be eligible for a residence permit for medical treatment. According to the State party’s information, the author had applied for such a permit, which was likely to be granted within a foreseeable period. The State party submitted that once the author had received a residence permit for medical treatment, he would no longer be at risk of expulsion and the grounds for his application to the Committee would cease to exist. 6.3 On 22 April 1999 counsel informed the Committee that the author had not yet received any residence permit for medical treatment. Furthermore, such a permit would be temporary and expire when the medical treatment was no longer necessary in the view of the medical adviser to the Ministry of Justice. Counsel submits that such a permit only postpones the expulsion risk, and that this is inadequate in order to fulfil the requirements of article 3 of the Convention. 6.4 By submission of 28 October 1999, the State party informed the Committee that on 7 June 1999 the State Secretary of Justice granted the author a residence permit for medical