CCPR/C/114/D/2280/2013 perceived association with LTTE; and that he would be safe from PLOTE in Jaffna and Colombo. Later, the Federal Court found that the author did not provide any convincing and compelling evidence to contradict the IRB decision. 4.7 The State party informs the Committee that on 12 September 2013, the author’s application for leave and for judicial review against the humanitarian and compassionate grounds decision was dismissed by the Federal Court. 4.8 As to the PRRA proceedings, the State party informs the Committee that on 24 October 2013, the author’s application for leave and for judicial review was dismissed by the Federal Court. It points out that in general, the purpose of PRRA is to assess, based on new facts and evidence, whether there have been any new developments since the IRB determination that could affect or change the risk assessment. Hence, PRRA is not intended to be another level of appeal of an IRB decision. In the present case, however, the author used his PRRA application to challenge the IRB decision, and made the same claims as he had made before the Federal Court, enclosing mainly country reports and media articles, mostly from 2012, which addressed the situation of Tamils in Sri Lanka generally. The PRRA officer concluded that the author had failed to demonstrate that he matched the profile of the people the reports and articles identified as being at risk or to establish that his profile would be of interest to the Sri Lankan authorities. 4.9 The State party notes that the author has relied on the statement at the beginning of the IRB decision, which indicates that “with respect to credibility, for the purposes of this hearing, the panel will accept the allegations of the [author] as true”. However, the State party maintains that the credibility of the author or the truth of his allegations was never definitively ruled on by IRB or any other authority, and that as a result of its finding that there had been a durable change in country conditions, IRB concluded that it was unnecessary for it to make a determination on the author’s accounts. The State party points out that the communication contains several inaccuracies, and that at the IRB hearing or in his Personal Information Form, the author testified that he never worked for PLOTE; that he was arrested by the Army on three occasions; and that his first arrest was a result of being caught up in a general round-up along with 18 other persons as he was walking home from work. 4.10 The State party maintains that objective country reports indicate that there are serious human rights violations in Sri Lanka, including torture, disappearance and arbitrary detention; that a disproportionate number of victims are Tamils, who are detained by the authorities;8 and that Tamil males who are detained by the authorities and are suspected of having ties to LTTE or otherwise opposing the Government are at risk of persecution and torture.9 Against this background, the State party submits that not all young Tamil males from northern Sri Lanka face a real and personal risk of persecution by the Sri Lankan authorities,10 and that reliable reports indicate that the persons who may be in need of 8 9 10 8 The State party refers to the concluding observations of the Committee against Torture, see note 5 above; the 2012 UNHCR Guidelines, p. 5; United States Department of State, 2012 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices – Sri Lanka, 19 April 2013, as well as to NGOs reports such as Amnesty International, Amnesty International 2013 Annual Report – Sri Lanka, 23 May 2013; Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2013 – Sri Lanka, 10 June 2013; and Human Rights Watch, World Report 2013 – Sri Lanka, 31 January 2013. The State party refers to the 2012 UNHCR Guidelines, pp. 17-18; the United States Department of State, 2012 Country Reports; and Human Rights Watch, “Sri Lanka: No progress 4 years on”, 20 May 2013. The State party refers to the 2012 UNHCR Guidelines, p. 26; United Kingdom: Home Office, Operational Guidance Note: Sri Lanka, July 2013, para. 3.9.21; and a decision of the Australia Refugee Review Tribunal (Case No. 1304427, [2013] RRTA 689, 11 October 2013).