CCPR/C/114/D/2280/2013 received medical treatment twice, once on 25 May 2008 when he had an injury to his head, which was bleeding, and the second time on 9 December 2009, when he had injuries on his body and a fever. 2.7 On 9 December 2011, IRB rejected the author’s request for refugee protection. It stated that with respect to credibility, for the purpose of the hearing, it would accept the author’s allegations as true, but pointed out that the armed conflict in Sri Lanka was over and that that was a durable change. It noted that in the hearing, he declared that he had never been associated with LTTE; that he had been detained and then released by the Army, which suggested that he was not considered a member of LTTE; that the Government had released thousands of LTTE members; and that, given that context, he was not at risk of persecution by the Army as a result of any perceived association with LTTE. As for PLOTE, IRB concluded that the author might face extortion by PLOTE in Vavuniya and be at risk of harm if he refused to work for free as a mason; that PLOTE had evolved into an essentially criminal organization and was not a force or was a diminishing force in Jaffna; and that it was hard to believe that PLOTE members in Jaffna would know of the organization’s actions against the author in Vavuniya.1 Accordingly, IRB concluded that the author would be safe from PLOTE in Jaffna or Colombo. 2.8 In its decision, IRB took note of the documentation provided by the author and pointed out, inter alia, that the 2010 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from Sri Lanka state that “given the cessation of hostilities, Sri Lankans originating from the north of the country are no longer in need of international protection under broader refugee criteria”.2 IRB also noted that recent analyses had indicated that those conditions had changed, but according to a response to an information request, the allegations had come from rights groups that had provided few substantive details about their allegations and that therefore, there was no reason to conclude that the 2010 UNCHR Guidelines were no longer valid. 2.9 IRB also stated that the author’s allegation that he would be at risk of apprehension upon arrival at the airport as a failed asylum seeker was only supported by sources that referred to a group of Tamil asylum seekers who were deported by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in September 2011. However, IRB considered that those sources basically expressed concern about the treatment of failed asylum seekers in Sri Lanka without providing enough supporting details. The reports of the United Kingdom and the Canadian High Commission indicated that if failed asylum seekers had no connection to LTTE and were not criminals, they would not face any risk while entering Sri Lanka. 2.10 The author lodged an application for leave and for judicial review before the Federal Court against the IRB decision. He contended, inter alia, that IRB had relied on a section of the 2010 UNHCR Guidelines that was broad and difficult to interpret; that it had ignored or misrepresented documentary evidence regarding the risk and danger he would face if deported, as well as the events that his family had been through; and that there was nothing in the documentary evidence subsequent to the 2010 UNHCR Guidelines to suggest that its conclusions were still valid. 2.11 On 20 June 2012, the author also applied for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration (Citizenship 1 2 4 IRB referred to the United States Department of State, 2010 Human Rights Report: Sri Lanka, 8 April 2011 and Danish Immigration Service, Human Rights and Security Issues concerning Tamils in Sri Lanka: Report from Danish Immigration Service’s fact-finding mission to Colombo, Sri Lanka. 19 June to 3 July 2010, p. 13. See www.refworld.org/docid/4c31a5b82.html.