CCPR/C/115/D/2258/2013 Appendix Joint opinion of Committee members Yuval Shany, Anja Seibert-Fohr and Konstantine Vardzelashvili (dissenting) 1. We regret that we are unable to join the majority on the Committee in finding that, in deciding to deport the author, Denmark would violate its obligations under article 7 of the Covenant. 2. In paragraph 7.3 of the Views, the Committee recalls that “it is generally for the organs of States parties to the Covenant to examine the facts and evidence of the case in order to determine whether such a risk exists, unless it can be established that the assessment was arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice”. Yet, in paragraph 7.7, it holds that “the authorities of the State party have not given appropriate consideration to the claim of the authors that they would be at risk of being subjected to torture or ill-treatment if removed to Sri Lanka due to the previous affiliation of their father with LTTE, the fact that they were taken away by this organization in 2009 and the events that the authors went through prior to their departure from Sri Lanka”. 3. In past cases in which the decision of State organs to deport an individual was found by the Committee to run contrary to the Covenant, the Committee attempted to base its position on inadequacies in the domestic decision-making process of the domestic organs of the State party that had led to the decision to the deport; or indications that the final decision was manifestly unreasonable or arbitrary in nature because available evidence was not properly taken into account or inadequate consideration was given in domestic proceedings to the specific rights of the author under the Covenant. a Procedural inadequacies consisted, at times, of serious procedural flaws in the conduct of the domestic review proceedingb or of the inability of the State party to provide a reasonable justification for its decision.c 4. Still, in the present case, the Committee merely notes that “current reports in the public domain concerning the human rights situation in Sri Lanka, as well as those to which the parties refer, indicate that, despite the change in conditions in the country, human rights violations, including torture, continue to occur and that, inter alia, certain individuals of Tamil ethnicity who are suspected of having links to LTTE, such as persons with family links or who are dependent on or otherwise closely related to former LTTE combatants, ‘cadres’ or former LTTE supporters who may never have undergone military training, may be in need of international protection”. Note that the said “current reports” in the public domain, which were published only after asylum proceedings in the State party had been concluded (and therefore could not have been considered by the State party’s authorities), do not suggest a worsening of the human rights situation in Sri Lanka, nor do they establish a new personal risk to the authors which was not included in the information that was before the State party’s authorities when reviewing the authors’ request for asylum. a b c 12 See e.g. communication No. 1544/2007, Hamida v. Canada, Views adopted on 18 March 2010, paras. 8.4-8.6. See e.g. communication No. 1908/2009, X. v. Republic of Korea, Views adopted on 25 March 2014, para. 11.5. See e.g. communication No. 1222/2003, Byahuranga v. Denmark, Views adopted on 1 November 2004, paras. 11.3 and 11.4.