CAT/C/61/D/720/2015 5.9 Given so many unreasonable attempts to arrive at negative credibility findings, the complainant contends that the Tribunal was acting with apprehended bias against him. He adds that the Tribunal’s findings with respect to complementary protection were “extremely sparse” — three 3 short sentences: (a) if he were to be imprisoned then reports of mistreatment of Tamils and of conditions generally in Sri Lankan prisons would not amount to a real risk of significant harm; (b) it is not likely that he would be arrested since he left Sri Lanka legally; (c) he would not be harmed otherwise because of his Tamil ethnicity, even one from the North, his imputed political opinion, his status as a failed asylum seeker, or suspicions of links to LTTE. All were discounted when considering his claims under the Refugee Convention. The complainant claims that the Tribunal did not assess whether there was a real risk of arrest, detention or harassment in relation to the persecution that he had suffered in 2009; whether his attempt to seek asylum after that persecution would revive suspicions of LTTE involvement, as the fact that he fled the country may easily be taken to be an indicator of guilt; and whether he faced danger as a witness to police persecution. 5.10 The complainant maintains that the conclusions of the Tribunal’s assessment of prison conditions was in stark contrast to that of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment who considered that the conditions in Sri Lankan prisons may well amount to “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment”.28 The complainant claims that, in retrospect, the Tribunal’s judgment shows a certain lack of diligence to enquire into the matter. It did not assess the real risk of torture for those held in detention and, notwithstanding mention about the prison conditions, it ignored the common practices of torture under interrogation carried out by the Sri Lanka security forces, in places of detention. 5.11 The complainant maintains that the rule of law in Sri Lanka is still of grave concern and refers to the observations of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers on her visit to Sri Lanka. 29 The Special Rapporteurs stated that, despite some political reforms after the 2015 elections, there were serious problems in Sri Lanka concerning the rule of law and, in particular, that torture was common in a large majority of cases. The police continued to act with impunity. The complainant submits that the Refugee Review Tribunal did not assess the risk that the police may retaliate against him precisely because its officers behaved in a persecutory manner towards him in 2009. Although this was not a claim made to the Tribunal, a reasonable assessment of the State party’s non-refoulement obligations would have assessed that possibility. 5.12 The complainant states that, since he has been a victim of persecution and torture in the past and since the United Nations continues to urge Sri Lanka to fully investigate events — especially in the North — during the final stages of the war in relation to allegations of war crimes and forced disappearances, there is considerable concern for the safety and well-being of those who may be considered witnesses to such events; he claims that he is such a witness. The Tribunal also did not assess whether the trauma that he suffered in 2009 would affect the complainant on facing the Sri Lanka police again and that his behaviour would revive their suspicions of him. A traumatized suspect is likely to behave in ways that provoke further suspicion, as their exacerbated fear may make them appear as if they have something to hide. 5.13 The complainant accepts that the Refugee Review Tribunal can only assess claims that are raised directly before it and claims that the issue of conditions in Sri Lanka prisons, for instance, was raised before the Tribunal. He submits that the fact that he had already been beaten while under interrogation in detention surely raises the possibility of it recurring if he were to return. The complainant requests that the Committee not only review the decision process undertaken by the authorities of the State party, but also assess the 28 29 See www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=19943&LangID=E. The Special Rapporteur was persuaded that torture by the Criminal Investigation Department and the Terrorism Investigation Department was a common practice. He noted that confessions were still a primary method of securing convictions in Sri Lanka and that prolonged detention without trial could be an incentive to torture. See www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=19942&LangID=E. 11