CCPR/C/115/D/2258/2013 2.5 On 2 July 2010, the Ministry of Justice refused the applications of the authors for residence permits on humanitarian grounds under section 9b (1) of the Aliens Act. 2.6 On 22 September 2010, the Refugee Appeals Board rejected the authors’ appeal. The Board stated that it had found the following accounts given by the authors as fact: they were ethnic Tamils from the Vanni area; they had not been politically active; their father had been taken by LTTE sometime in 2009; they had fled to Mullivaikal; they had lost contact with their mother and sister; and they had been driven by the military to a camp in Vavuniya, where they had been picked up by a maternal uncle after two months. However, the fact that their father had been an active member of LTTE could not lead to the conclusion that the authors were at risk of persecution. It noted that their father’s membership in that organization had ended when he got married and after that he had been able to live for a long period without any problem. The Board further noted that there was no basis for assuming that the father’s activities up to the date of the authors’ departure had been of such nature or scope that they had subsequently drawn attention to him; and that the authorities of Sri Lanka had not inflicted any abuses on the authors when they were in the camp in Vavuniya, which they had left without difficulty. Further, according to background information on the human rights situation in Sri Lanka, persons suspected of being LTTE supporters but who were not high profile were generally not at risk of persecution. Therefore, the Board concluded that the authors’ removal to Sri Lanka would not put them at risk of persecution. The Board pointed out that no deadline to leave the State party had been established, since the Danish Immigration Service had indicated during the hearing that it would consider ex officio whether the authors’ case fell under section 9c (3) (ii) of the Aliens Act (special residence permit for an unaccompanied minor seeking asylum). However, the authors could be forcibly removed to Sri Lanka if they were not granted residence permits under that provision. 2.7 Within the proceedings before the Danish Immigration Service under section 9c (3) (ii) of the Aliens Act, the authors claimed that they had no contact with anybody in Sri Lanka. They also provided psychological reports dated 8 November 2010 stating that they had learning difficulties, low self-esteem, anxiety and depression, and that they were in special need of support, guidance and care. They further provided Jenarthan’s medical records dated 8 September 2011 from the Danish Red Cross, which noted that he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and had suicidal thoughts. 2.8 On 5 July 2011, the Danish Immigration Service asked the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to initiate a search for the authors’ relatives in Sri Lanka. On 7 July 2011, the Ministry informed the Immigration Service that it had been unable to carry out the search owing to both security and resource reasons. 2.9 On 30 January 2012, the Immigration Service refused to grant the authors residence permits under section 9c (3) (ii) of the Aliens Act. It considered that they had failed to show that their low cognitive level and psychological condition were of such severity as to require them to remain in the State party, and that their problems could also be treated in Sri Lanka. Although the search for the authors’ parents through the Red Cross had been unsuccessful and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had been unable to conduct a search in Sri Lanka, there was no evidence to conclude that their parents were no longer alive and living in Sri Lanka. The authors appealed the decision to the Ministry of Justice. 2.10 On 27 February 2013, the Ministry of Justice confirmed the 30 January 2012 decision of the Immigration Service and informed the authors that they should leave the territory of the State party on 6 March 2013 at the latest. The Ministry pointed out that an unaccompanied minor who claimed that he had no family network in his country of origin normally bore the burden of proving that claim; that the authors had been born and raised in Sri Lanka with their parents and siblings; that it must be assumed that their parents and sister were still living in Sri Lanka; and that they might constitute a family network for them such that they would not be placed in an emergency situation upon return. It further stated that, even if their parents and sister had died, the authors would not meet the 4