CCPR/C/115/D/2258/2013 violations, that did not create a general risk for all Tamils returning to Sri Lanka. 3 The State party pointed out that, in its decision of 22 September 2010, the Refugee Appeals Board had made a specific individual assessment and concluded, inter alia, that the activities carried out by the authors’ father for LTTE had occurred so long ago and were of such scope and nature that they had not drawn attention to him (or, consequently, the authors), and that the authors had not previously been subjected to any abuse by the authorities. The Board had further stated, inter alia, that the authors had not been subjected to any abuse by the authorities during their stay in the camp in Vavuniya, that they had left the camp without any problem and that it appeared from the background information on the situation in Sri Lanka that persons suspected of being sympathetic to LTTE, but who were not high profile, were generally not at any risk of persecution. The State party submitted that there was no reason to question the Board’s assessment and that the authors’ individual situations did not in any way indicate that they would be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment upon return to Sri Lanka. 4.8 The State party maintained that the authors were in fact trying to use the Committee as an appellate body to have the factual circumstances presented in support of their claim for asylum reassessed by the Committee. However, the Committee should give considerable weight to the findings of the Refugee Appeals Board, which was better placed to assess the findings of fact in the authors’ cases. In that connection, in February 2013 its authorities had determined that there was no specific basis in the background information on Sri Lanka for assuming that Tamils who had not themselves been affiliated with LTTE and whose family members were not high-profile members of LTTE would be at any risk of persecution or abuse justifying asylum merely as a consequence of their ethnicity. The State party referred to the 2012 UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum Seekers from Sri Lanka, 4 and noted that the authors’ father did not appear to have had an executive position with LTTE, according to the authors’ own statements. Moreover, their father’s involvement with LTTE had occurred long ago, and he had been able to leave the organization without experiencing any problem and to live in peace with his family for many years. Other available background material concerning Sri Lanka to which the authors had referred, including reports from Freedom House and Human Rights Watch,5 also did not appear to contain information that would support the assumption that Tamils who were not high profile, like the authors, would be subjected to persecution or abuse upon their re-entry to Sri Lanka as failed asylum seekers. 4.9 The State party pointed out that on 27 February 2013 the Ministry of Justice had decided not to grant the authors residence permits under section 9c (3) (ii) of the Aliens Act. It stated, inter alia, that there was an insufficient basis for assuming that the author’s family was not still living in Sri Lanka. Even if their parents and sister had died, the authors had a maternal uncle residing in Colombo, and he might constitute a family network such that the authors would not be placed in an emergency situation upon return. 4.10 As to the authors’ allegations that they were vulnerable and needed support due to their age, level of maturity and health, the State party noted the Immigration Service and Refugee Appeals Board conclusions that the authors were sufficiently mature to undergo asylum proceedings. Their situation as unaccompanied asylum-seeking minors had been duly taken into account by the authorities. After their asylum requests had been denied by 3 4 5 The State party also refers to European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence in N.S. v. Denmark (application No. 58359/08), P.K. v. Denmark (application No. 54705/08), S.S. and Others v. Denmark (application No. 54703/08), T.N. and S.N. v. Denmark (application No. 36517/08) and T.N. v. Denmark (application No. 20594/08). See UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum Seekers from Sri Lanka (21 December 2012), sect. III.A.1. Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2013, analysis of Sri Lanka (10 June 2013); and Human Rights Watch, “We Will Teach You a Lesson”. 7