CAT/C/60/D/623/2014 interim measures is not equivalent to a court order. The complainant argues that denial of access to asylum-seeker benefits in his case is equivalent to failure by the State party to comply in good faith with article 22 of the Convention by differentiating the treatment of asylum seekers. Currently, the complainant has to depend on assistance from his friends. 6.2 On 10 November 2015, the complainant was taken by ambulance to a hospital having swallowed 14 miratazapine tablets and 2 Panadols, allegedly because he was due to be discharged from the reception centre. State party’s additional observations 7.1 On 25 January 2016, the State party submitted additional observations and reiterated its previous position. With reference to section 4:6 of the Federal Administrative Law Act, the State party explains that this provision aims at preventing repeated applications and ensuring decision-making within a reasonable time. If a new asylum application is submitted after the previous one has been rejected on the merits, section 4:6 compels the asylum seeker to present new facts or altered circumstances, which will be examined in the light of the previous application. Asylum seekers have ample opportunity to present all the information and relevant documents in their first application or, if they do not have the documents, to inform the authorities about their existence. They can also present relevant facts, with certain restrictions, to the courts at the appeal stage. There are also sufficient due diligence safeguards and legal remedies available to ensure that the subsequent asylum applications are duly considered through an interview and appeal process. 7.2 The State party refers to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in which the Court established that the Sri Lankan authorities are interested in high-profile members of LTTE or other separatist groups who pose a threat to the unity of the Sri Lankan State through their separatist work in the diaspora. 6 The State party notes that this does not apply to the complainant, who does not have any special profile with respect to LTTE or family members with important roles within LTTE, and who has never encountered any problems with the Sri Lankan authorities. 7.3 As to the complainant’s request for shelter, the State party submits that it falls outside the scope of the Committee’s competence, since the Convention has no provision guaranteeing the right to shelter for asylum seekers. It would be going too far to deduce the right to shelter from the Committee’s request not to return the complainant to Sri Lanka. The complainant complained under article 3 of the Convention in order to prevent irreparable harm from occurring should he be returned to Sri Lanka, and the State party complied with the Committee’s request for interim measures. It is thus complying in good faith with article 22 of the Convention. Providing shelter is not an obligation in that respect. 7.4 The State party also submits that neither the documents submitted by the complainant nor any other evidence indicate that the manner in which the State party is complying with the interim measures request has resulted in the complainant being denied access to medical care, necessary or otherwise. Additional comments by the complainant 8.1 On 24 February 2016, the complainant provided additional comments. He refers to a report of the International Truth and Justice Project Sri Lanka, 7 in which the organization states that it is not safe to return to Sri Lanka for Tamils who had any connection with LTTE, even low-level cadres. It states that the Sri Lankan intelligence service takes pictures at LTTE events abroad and then shows them to detainees, to show them that attending such events is a risk for Tamils returning to Sri Lanka. 8.2 Regarding the application of section 4:6 of the Federal Administrative Law Act, the complainant states that his Facebook pictures were not accepted during the third asylum 6 7 Reference is made to European Court of Human Rights, N.A. v. United Kingdom (application No. 25904/07), judgment of 17 July 2008; T.N. v. Denmark (application No. 20594/08), judgment of 20 January 2011; and E.G. v. United Kingdom (application No. 41178/08) judgment of 31 March 2011. Silenced: Survivors of Torture and Sexual Violence in 2015, January 2016, available from http://www.itjpsl.com/assets/Silenced-jan-2016.pdf. 5