not have any problems relating to his Sinhalese origin, nor did he sympathize with or work actively for any political party. 4.9 The State party concludes that the author has not substantiated elements which would allow it to be concluded that, on the basis of his ethnic background, alleged political affiliation and history of detention, the author would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his return to Sri Lanka. Accordingly, it considers the communication ill-founded. Counsel's comments 5.1 In his reply to the State party's submission, counsel notes that the State party does not contest the most important elements of the author's account of his activities as a photographer, i.e. abduction and escape from Sri Lanka. The inconsistencies to which the State party refers do not raise doubts as to the general veracity of his claim and are to be explained by the absence of a Sinhalese interpreter during the initial asylum proceedings and the fact that the author had previously been subjected to torture and serious ill-treatment. 5.2 Counsel further notes the State party's argument that the author's activities in Sri Lanka were not based on political conviction and that he was never a member of a political party. According to counsel, the position of the State party displays an incorrect and narrow definition of "political belief". Even though the author was not member of a political party, political belief was attributed to him by the authorities owing to his having published photographs of victims of human rights violations. According to both Netherlands case law and international refugee law, attributed political belief has been considered as one criterion for determining refugee status. 5.3 Counsel refutes the argument that by moving to another part of Sri Lanka the author was able to avoid any further difficulties from October 1992 until his departure. Counsel maintains that the author went into hiding and worked in secret and points out that the State party itself admits not having enough data to ascertain whether the author was actually obliged to work in secret. The question of an internal flight alternative was not previously raised during the domestic proceedings and should therefore not be an issue before the Committee. In any case, an internal flight alternative would not be feasible, in view of the fact that the author was being persecuted by the authorities. 5.4 With respect to the medical evidence, counsel submits that the State party should have conducted its own medical examination in view of the author's claim that he had been subjected to torture. A medical examination, conducted by the Bureau of Medical Advice of the Ministry of Justice, could have demonstrated that the torture to which the author was subjected in Sri Lanka had resulted in a post-traumatic stress disorder. 5.5 With reference to the general political situation in Sri Lanka, counsel draws the attention of the Committee to the fact that in view of the uncertain and dangerous situation prevailing in the country, the Netherlands authorities have for a period of time refrained from deporting Sri Lankan asylum-seekers. In the present situation there is no guarantee that the author would not risk persecution by the Government now in power in Sri Lanka, nor that he would be effectively protected by the Government should he be persecuted or tortured by those previously in power. 92