CAT/C/71/D/896/2018 account about the cause of his injuries.6 It is also evident from the documents he provides, such as the warrant for his arrest, that he remains a person of interest to the Sri Lankan authorities. He underlines that the summons dated 3 November 2011, issued by the magistrate’s court in Colombo at the request of the Counter-Terrorism Investigation Division, indicates that there have been allegations made against him of aiding terrorists. The documents were verified as genuine by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sri Lanka on 10 February 2012. 3.3 The complainant claims that, ever since his arrival in the Netherlands, he has been an active member of the Tamil diaspora. He has closely cooperated with two leaders of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in the organization of Tamil events by the Tamil Youth Organization in the Netherlands. Those persons are listed in the Gazette of Sri Lanka as terrorists. The complainant asserts that he remains politically active in the Netherlands up to the present day. State party’s observations on the merits 4.1 On 13 May 2019, the State party submitted its observation on the merits of the communication. After explaining the legislation and procedures applicable to the complainant’s case, as well as the country situation in Sri Lanka, the State party submits that the complainant has not established satisfactorily that he would be at risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention if returned to Sri Lanka. The State party indicates that the complainant was interviewed several times during his asylum application procedures, with the assistance of an interpreter. The complainant also had the opportunity to submit corrections and additions to the reports of the interviews, and to respond to the notifications of intent to deny his asylum applications. He had legal representation throughout the proceedings. The asylum procedure, with the necessary safeguards, therefore offered the complainant sufficient opportunities to satisfactorily establish the veracity of his account. The District Court of The Hague and the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State carefully assessed his claims in four sets of proceedings. Nevertheless, most of the complainant’s narrative was found not to be credible, and other risk factors cited by him, considered individually and cumulatively, have not demonstrated that he has been of interest to the Sri Lankan authorities to the present day. 4.2 Citing the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in N.A. v. the United Kingdom7 and the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in G.J. and others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department,8 and on the basis of his claims, the State party assesses that, unlike in the cited cases, in the present case, there is no real risk that the complainant would be perceived to have a significant role in diaspora activities designed to destabilize the unitary State of Sri Lanka and revive the internal armed conflict. 4.3 The State party considers that the complainant has not established satisfactorily that the Sri Lankan authorities were aware of his participation in training and other activities affiliated with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. In that regard, the State party underlines 6 7 8 4 The report contains findings indicating that the scars on the complainant’s face and the condition of his teeth are consistent with the complainant’s statement that they were caused as a result of illtreatment with a rifle butt. The scars on his knees are consistent with his statement that they had been caused by continuous crawling. The scars on his upper back are consistent with his statement that they were caused by being hanged with hooks sunk in his muscles. The scars on his elbow are consistent with his statement that they were caused by being hit with a wooden stick. The scars on his lower arm are consistent with his statement that they were caused by cigarette burns. The psychological problems, including post-traumatic stress disorder, fear, paranoid and depressive feelings and memory and concentration problems, are typical of patients who have been subjected to torture and other forms of ill-treatment. European Court of Human Rights, N.A. v. the United Kingdom (application No. 25904/07), judgment of 17 July 2008. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), G.J. and others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, decision adopted on 5 July 2013.