CCPR/C/114/D/2280/2013 4.14 The State party submits that the principle that individuals must seek to minimize their risk of harm, where possible, through internal relocation or resettlement within their own State or internal flight alternative is well-established in international refugee law,17 as recognized by the jurisprudence of international human rights bodies and courts. Author’s comments on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 7 November 2014, the author submitted his comments on admissibility and the merits. The author informs the Committee that in April 2014, he submitted a second application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds to Citizenship and Immigration Canada; that on 10 September 2014, his application was dismissed; and that on 1 October 2014, he filed an application for leave and for judicial review to the Federal Court, which was pending at the time that his comments were submitted to the Committee. 5.2 The author argues that in general, IRB cannot make a determination concerning a refugee claim without making a determination as to the credibility of the claimant’s allegations. Accordingly, it should be assumed that IRB made a determination concerning the credibility of his accounts and considered them as true. 5.3 The author contends that recent reports on the human rights situation in Sri Lanka indicate that significant and concrete links with LTTE are not required for a person to be at risk of persecution if returned to Sri Lanka. Instead, individuals of Tamil ethnicity with only a minimal or merely suspected link to LTTE are at risk of persecution. 18 He reiterates that the fact that he is a failed asylum seeker of Tamil ethnicity will lead the Sri Lankan authorities to suspect that he has links to LTTE. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 6.2 The Committee notes, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under any other procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee notes that the State party has not objected to the admissibility of the communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. It observes that the author has filed numerous applications of a different nature to prevent his deportation to Sri Lanka; that his refugee application was finally dismissed by the Supreme Court decision of 31 August 2012; and that within the PRRA proceedings, on 30 July and 24 October 2013, the Federal Court also dismissed the author’s motion for a stay of removal and his application for leave and for judicial review against the PRRA decision, respectively. 17 18 10 Politics”, 8 April 2009; and International Crisis Group, Sri Lanka’s North I: The denial of minority rights, 16 March 2012, Asia Report No. 219, p. 12. The State party refers to the UNHCR guidelines on international protection: “Internal Flight or Relocation Alternative” within the Context of article 1(A)2 of the 1951 Convention and/or 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees. The author refers to Asylum Research Consultancy, “Sri Lanka country of origin information (COI) Query Response”, 19 August 2014; and Freedom from Torture, Freedom from Torture submission to the Human Rights Committee for the fifth periodic review of Sri Lanka in October 2014, pp. 6-7.