CAT/C/62/D/696/2015 complainant was examined more than a year after he entered the State party, after such a long period, it is no longer possible to determine how old the scars are. 6.15 Regarding the supplementary medical report (from the Institute for Human Rights and Medical Research), submitted by the complainant with his second application for asylum, the State party considers that the cautiously formulated conclusions of the report do not establish that, in the complainant’s case, there is a genuine causal relationship between his medical problems and his inability to give a comprehensive account. The Institute for Human Rights and Medical Research did not examine the complainant in person and it describes medical complaints that were already known from the complainant’s file. Nonetheless, the complainant’s inability to give a complete and consistent account of less important matters and certain details has not been held against him. However, what has been held against him is that he failed to report essential parts of his account immediately and that he made contradictory, vague and implausible statements regarding those matters. 6.16 The State party considers it significant that the complainant maintains that he was never involved with LTTE. The complainant stated that he was only forced to pay money to LTTE and hang decorations in his shop on the occasion of Great Heroes Day like other Tamils and shopkeepers. He stated that he never took part in the conflict in any way. Furthermore, the complainant stated that he was released after a short time after being arrested on each occasion, which suggests that he was not of any particular interest to the authorities. 6.17 Regarding the complainant’s claim that he was asked to be an informant for the Sri Lankan authorities when he was first detained in 2008, the State party notes that there is no evidence that his refusal got him into trouble with the authorities, apart from the arrests in 2008, after which he was soon released. The fact that he was issued a national passport in September 2009 is also evidence that he was not the subject of adverse attention from the authorities at that time and that he did not leave the country illegally, as he claims. 6.18 The State party notes that, even though the complainant’s sister was taken by the Sri Lanka Army in 1989, and raped and murdered for alleged involvement in LTTE, it does not mean that the complainant would necessarily experience problems in relation to those events if he were to return to Sri Lanka. The same applies with respect to his brother’s alleged arrest in 2002. There is no evidence that his brother or sister were actually involved with LTTE or the armed conflict. The State party also notes that every Tamil who comes from the region that was held by LTTE has some direct or indirect link, such as through family members, with LTTE. That does not mean that every Tamil is at risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention against Torture. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 In his submission dated 13 April 2017, the complainant provided his comments to the State party’s observations. The complainant challenges the State party’s reference to judgments handed down by the European Court of Human Rights from 2011 to 2015, which indicate that (a) since the conflict in Sri Lanka ended, the level of adverse interest in failed asylum seekers returning to the country has decreased; and (b) there is a risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the European Convention only if the alien can demonstrate that the authorities are interested in him or her specifically, for example, because he or she committed a criminal offence or was an influential member of LTTE. The complainant notes that those statements do not correspond to the relevant information about the situation in Sri Lanka for returning Tamils. In an updated submission to the Human Rights Committee for its consideration of the fifth periodic report of Sri Lanka in October 2014, Freedom from Torture stated that 96 per cent of victims of torture were of Tamil ethnicity. 12 The key factor that appeared to have led to the detention and torture of those men and women by the authorities was a real or perceived connection to LTTE — either their own connection and/or that of a family member or acquaintance. Those with personal involvement with LTTE had typically participated in a non-combat capacity, for example 12 See Freedom from Torture updated submission to the Human Rights Committee for the fifth periodic review of Sri Lanka in October 2014, p. 6. 7