CCPR/C/115/D/2258/2013 conditions required to be issued a residence permit, since they had an uncle who lived in Colombo. The fact that they did not know his exact address in Colombo could not lead to any other result. Accordingly, the Ministry of Justice found that the situation of the authors would not be different from the situation applicable to other persons of the same age in Sri Lanka, and that they would not in fact be placed in an emergency situation upon return to that country. Finally, it concluded that the information provided regarding the authors’ general learning difficulties, low self-esteem, anxiety and depression, as well as their special need for support and care, could not lead to a different conclusion. The complaint 3.1 The authors alleged that their deportation to Sri Lanka would constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant, in view of their Tamil origin, the events they had gone through prior to their departure, their father’s previous membership in LTTE and his disappearance. 3.2 The authors claimed that the Danish authorities had not adequately assessed the risk to which they would be subject if returned to Sri Lanka. They were at serious risk of being detained and tortured by the Sri Lankan authorities, since they were young Tamils from Jaffna and their father had been a member of LTTE. Tamils who were returned to Sri Lanka were often detained upon arrival and exposed to acts of torture. 1 In their case, the fact that they had left the country illegally and would be returned by the State party with temporary travel documents put them at further risk. 3.3 They claimed that they had been abroad since 2009 and that they had no family or connections left in Sri Lanka. They were very young, had limited cognitive skills and needed special support, as described in a report issued by a psychologist of the Danish Red Cross. State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 On 16 December 2013, the State party provided observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. It maintained that the communication should be declared inadmissible for non-substantiation. Should the Committee declare the communication admissible, the Covenant would not be violated if the authors were returned to Sri Lanka. 4.2 The State party informed the Committee that on 29 August 2013 the Refugee Appeals Board had refused the request by the authors to reopen the asylum proceedings. The Board stated, inter alia, that when it considered cases in which the asylum seeker was an unaccompanied minor, it would assess the asylum seeker’s procedural capacity, including maturity. In that connection, the Board referred to its decision of 22 September 2010, in which it had assessed that the authors were sufficiently mature to undergo asylum proceedings, since they had been able to give coherent statements on their grounds for seeking asylum, as well as during the proceedings before the Danish Immigration Service. Further, it had also found as fact the statements of the authors regarding their grounds for seeking asylum. Against that background, the Board had found no basis for reopening the proceedings. 4.3 The State party provided a detailed description of the asylum proceedings under the Aliens Act, in particular the organization and competence of the Refugee Appeals Board. Decisions of the Board were based on an individual and specific assessment of the relevant case. The statements of an asylum seeker regarding his or her grounds for seeking asylum were assessed in the light of all relevant evidence, including what was known from background material about conditions in the country of origin. The Board was responsible not only for examining and bringing out information on the specific facts of the case, but 1 The authors refer to the Human Rights Watch report “We Will Teach You a Lesson”: Sexual Violence against Tamils by Sri Lankan Security Forces (February 2013). 5