CCPR/C/114/D/2280/2013 allegedly detained by the Army on three occasions under suspicion of being an LTTE member, that he was tortured and ill-treated while in detention, and that his family continued to be harassed by the Army after he left his country. 7.4 The Committee also notes the State party’s arguments that its authorities reviewed all the documentary evidence submitted to them; that objective and reliable reports indicate that there are serious human rights violations in Sri Lanka; that not all young Tamil males from northern Sri Lanka face a real and personal risk of persecution by the authorities but only those who are suspected of having links to LTTE; and that the author has not demonstrated that he is a person who is suspected of having significant and concrete links with LTTE. 7.5 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that important weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party, unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice, 22 and that it is generally for the organs of States parties to the Covenant to review or evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether such a risk exists.23 7.6 In the present case, the Committee notes that the author’s claims focus mainly on the assessment of the documentary evidence carried out by the authorities, arguing that the evidence was not adequately taken into account, and that at least some reports appear to conclude that even a minimal or merely suspected link to LTTE would be enough to put an individual at risk of persecution in Sri Lanka. The Committee observes that reports on the human rights situation in Sri Lanka indicate that despite the changes that have taken place, human rights violations, including torture, continue to exist; and that, inter alia, certain individuals of Tamil ethnicity who are suspected of having links to LTTE may be in need of international protection. It also observes that the author does not argue that he was a member of LTTE or that he has participated, supported or been involved in the activities of LTTE in any manner, rather he submits that his three detentions by the Army, his Tamil ethnicity and his condition as a failed asylum seeker constitute sufficient elements to conclude that he would be perceived as a person with links to LTTE. Against this background, IRB and the Federal Court refused the author’s refugee application since they considered that the author failed to demonstrate that he had a connection to LTTE. Subsequently, within the PRRA proceedings, the immigration authorities found that the author did not show that he had a perceived association with LTTE. In examining those applications, the authorities reviewed the author’s allegations, taking into due consideration reports from several States and NGOs that provided information concerning the situation of Tamils in Sri Lanka. The author disagrees with the decisions reached. However, he has failed to explain why those decisions are manifestly unreasonable or arbitrary, for instance due to their failure to take properly into account a relevant risk factor. Accordingly, the Committee cannot conclude that the removal of the author to Sri Lanka would constitute a violation of articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant. 8. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the author’s removal to Sri Lanka would not violate his rights under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 22 23 12 See communications No. 2007/2010, para. 9.2; and No. 1833/2008, para. 5.18. See communications No. 1763/2008, Pillai et al. v. Canada, Views adopted on 25 March 2011, para. 11.4; and No. 1957/2010, Lin v. Australia, Views adopted on 21 March 2013, para. 9.3.