CAT/C/60/D/699/2015 4.5 The State party notes that, according to objective reports, there continues to be serious human rights violations in Sri Lanka, including with regard to post-conflict justice, torture, disappearances and arbitrary detentions,4 with a disproportionate number of victims of such violations being Tamils 5 and the most affected regions being those with a significant Tamil population, including the northern provinces. Reports also indicate that Tamil males who have been detained by the Sri Lankan police can be at risk of torture, particularly where they are suspected of having links with LTTE. If an individual faces a real risk of irreparable harm from Sri Lankan authorities, there would be no internal flight alternative.6 4.6 Despite these serious human rights issues, not all Sri Lankan Tamil males originating from the north would be at a real risk of irreparable harm from Sri Lankan authorities. According to the UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from Sri Lanka of 2012: “At the height of its influence in Sri Lanka in 2000-2001, the LTTE controlled and administered 76% of what are now the northern and eastern provinces of Sri Lanka. Therefore, all persons living in those areas necessarily had some contact with the LTTE and its civilian administration in their daily lives. Originating from an area that was previously controlled by the LTTE does not in itself result in a need for international refugee protection.”7 What is required is “significant and concrete links with the LTTE”8 and being perceived to be “a threat to the integrity of Sri Lanka as a single state because … [of a] significant role in relation to post-conflict Tamil separatism within the diaspora and/or a renewal of hostilities within Sri Lanka”.9 The complainant is not perceived by Sri Lankan authorities as having any links with LTTE or representing a risk to the unitary State of Sri Lanka. As such, the complainant’s profile does not create substantial grounds to believe that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon return. 4.7 The complainant bases the risk of torture, first, on a brief period of alleged detention between April and August 2009 during the civil war in Sri Lanka. The State party relies on the findings of the Refugee Protection Division that the author was not deemed credible with regard to his alleged detention. The complainant also failed to present any medical evidence of prior mistreatment or any basis on which to conclude that he would face a personal and present risk upon return. In this regard, the Division concluded that he had not provided any persuasive evidence or testimony that he had been personally targeted on the occasion he was questioned by authorities in Sri Lanka. After a thorough consideration of his testimony about his personal profile and history in Sri Lanka, the Division found that the complainant did not meet the UNHCR criteria for persons suspected of certain links with LTTE and that he would therefore face no serious possibility of persecution on that basis should he return to Sri Lanka. 4.8 The complainant’s second argument in support of his claim that he risked torture is based on the fact that his brother had fought with LTTE between 1992 and 1997. The State party notes that the complainant raised this argument for the first time in his pre-removal risk assessment application and that he did not provide a convincing justification for not having disclosed this information previously to the Refugee Protection Division or the Canada Border Services Agency. The pre-removal risk assessment officer also noted that 4 5 6 7 8 9 4 The State party cites, inter alia, UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from Sri Lanka, issued in 2012; the concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee on the third through fifth periodic reports of Sri Lanka (CCPR/C/79/Add.56, CCPR/CO/79/LKA and CCPR/C/LKA/CO/5), Amnesty International Report 2014/15: The State of the World’s Human Rights and Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2015. United States of America Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2014, Sri Lanka, p. 2. UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines. The State party cites, in this regard, the decision of the Australian Refugee Review Tribunal in its case No. 1304427, decision adopted on 11 October 2013. UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), G.J. and others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, decision adopted on 8 July 2013, para. 356 (7) (a).