CCPR/C/114/D/2280/2013 asylum seekers who had perceived links with the LTTE, were detained upon arrival by the police and the Army and subjected to torture.6 State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 4 March 2014, the State party provided observations on admissibility and the merits of the communication. It maintains that the communication should be declared inadmissible on the grounds of incompatibility with the provisions of the Covenant and non-substantiation. 4.2 The author’s claims under article 9 (1) of the Covenant are inadmissible, as they are incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol.7 The State party submits that it does not have an obligation under article 9 (1) to refrain from removing an individual to another State in which he or she faces a real risk of arbitrary detention, and that any alleged risk of arbitrary detention in Sri Lanka should only be considered as part of the factual context for the author’s allegations under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 4.3 The author’s allegations under articles 6 and 7, as well as article 9, are inadmissible pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol. The author’s allegations before the Committee are based on the same facts and evidence as those that were presented to the Canadian authorities. All the authorities carried out a thorough review of the author’s submissions and evidence. There is nothing in that evidence or the evidence the author submitted in his communication to suggest that he is at personal risk of death, torture or other similarly serious violations of his human rights upon return to Sri Lanka. 4.4 It is not the role of the Committee to re-evaluate facts and evidence unless it is manifest that the domestic authorities’ evaluation was arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. Nothing in the author’s communication suggests arbitrariness or denial of justice. Nevertheless, should the Committee decide to re-evaluate the facts and evidence of the case, the State party submits that the author has not established that he would be at personal risk of treatment that violates the provisions of the Covenant if returned to Sri Lanka. 4.5 Should the Committee consider the author’s communication to be admissible, the State party maintains that the communication does not disclose a violation of the Covenant. It is not sufficient for the author to show that general human rights abuses continue to exist in Sri Lanka without providing a basis for believing that he is at real and personal risk of death, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. He has not established his personal risk through any objective evidence and his alleged experiences in Sri Lanka in 2008 and 2009, even if they were accepted as true, do not provide support for his allegations of future risk when considered in the light of the objective reports of the current human rights situation in Sri Lanka. 4.6 IRB reviewed all the documentary evidence submitted to it and decided, inter alia, that the reports on the conditions in Sri Lanka did not support the author’s allegation that all young Tamil males from the north who return to Sri Lanka faced a real risk of torture or death, since the Sri Lankan authorities were at the time interested in Tamils who had actively supported and continued to support LTTE; that the author, as a failed asylum seeker, did not face a serious risk of being persecuted by the Sri Lankan Army due to any 6 7 See note 4 above. The author also refers to a report issued by Freedom from Torture in September 2012, as well as articles published in newspapers. The State party refers to the Committee’s general comments No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, paras. 12-13, and No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, para. 62. 7