CAT/C/59/D/633/2014 included a summons dated 23 July 2013 to appear as a witness in proceedings against V.K. Mekan relating to death threats made during a telephone call between two specified telephone numbers. No further information was provided about the circumstances surrounding the incident, V.K. Mekan or the outcome of the court hearing. The Department of Immigration and Border Protection assessed those documents, which indicated that the complainant’s wife was a witness in proceedings against a person accused of making a threatening telephone call and had told a parish priest that she was receiving threatening telephone calls. The Department of Immigration and Border Protection assessed that those documents did not substantiate the claims that the complainant’s wife had been targeted and harassed by the Criminal Investigation Department or that the complainant or his family were of interest to the Sri Lankan authorities. They contained no evidence to support the claim that the complainant’s wife had been arrested, detained and mistreated by the authorities. The Department of Immigration and Border Protection had also considered threatening letters from the Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal demanding money and the use of the complainant’s home in 2007. The complainant had returned to the Batticaloa region on 25 September 2008 and remained there until 2012, suggesting he was able to do so without fear of harm from that group or paramilitary groups. The State party maintained that the documents provided by the complainant did not substantiate the claims that he would be subjected to torture upon return to Sri Lanka. 4.18 The State party noted that according to the complainant, his wife and children were allegedly evicted by the Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal from her and the complainant’s house in 2007. Noting the lack of evidence to support that claim, RRT rejected it. In his submission to the Committee, the complainant annexed evidence that was not provided to RRT. The evidence included a letter, dated 15 January 2007, purportedly from the political wing of the Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal, referring to the cessation of monthly payments made by the complainant since 2005 and requesting that the complainant attend the organization’s office to discuss the matter. The letter stated that if the complainant refused to meet with the organization, his life would not be guaranteed, he would not be able to live in that area and his house and belongings would be confiscated. Another undated letter, purportedly from the political wing of the Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal, informed the complainant’s wife that she must hand over her house for use as an office. The complainant also attached a statement from a neighbour attesting to the eviction and a statement from the Justice of the Peace enlisted by the complainant to assist in reclaiming the house. The State party submitted that a considerable amount of time had passed since the temporary eviction of the complainant’s family in 2007 and maintained that, given that passage of time, it did not consider that the complainant would be of continued interest to the Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal by reason of his having reclaimed his home. 4.19 The State party noted that in his submission to the Committee, the complainant claimed that his father had been questioned and tortured for two days, sometime between 1987 and 1991, in retaliation for the complainant’s escape from the Tamil Eelam Liberation Organization camp. That appeared to be a more expansive version of the claim put to RRT, which stated that the complainant’s father had been beaten after the complainant went to Colombo. The State party maintained that there was no evidence to suggest that the complainant was of continued interest to the Sri Lankan authorities. The claim regarding the treatment of the complainant’s father had been assessed by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. The family link did not prevent the complainant from obtaining a passport or travelling freely within Sri Lanka after the incident allegedly took place, indicating that he was not of continued interest to the Sri Lankan authorities. 4.20 The State party noted that the complainant had made reference to reported comments made by Gotabaya Rajapaksa in a public speech in 2012 in his capacity as Secretary of the Sri Lankan Ministry of Defence and Urban Development. The comments included references to the phenomenon of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam cadres fleeing 8