for suspected LTTE activities, it is hard to see why he was willing to take a
considerable risk by leaving the country from Colombo airport. The author's
statements on the fate of his father also are inconsistent. Contrary to the
account presented in the communication and at the first interview that his
father had died in captivity of a heart attack, the author stated subsequent to
the second interview that his father had been held at an earlier point by
LTTE for a week and had been released upon suffering a minor heart attack.
4.10 As to Mrs. S.A.'s position, the State party also argues that her account
contains no indication that she would be at any greater risk than other
Tamils upon returning to Sri Lanka. Regarding her arrest by and possible
suspicion of involvement with LTTE, the State party points out that it is
important that her work was performed under duress. She cannot be
regarded as any kind of LTTE activist, and the activities she performed were
in the service sphere. In the view of her background and experience, the
State party does not consider it plausible that the Sri Lankan authorities
would consider her a valuable informant, and in this respect she is no
different from many other Sri Lankan Tamil who at some time had been
detained in an LTTE camp.
4.11 The author's contention that the Sri Lankan authorities took an
increased interest in her is also not supported by the fact that she left the
country in the manner easiest to control, that is from Colombo airport.
Regarding her allegation that her uncle was killed by the authorities on
account of her escape, the State party points out that the contention is based
on hearsay. No corroboration or evidence of any kind has been furnished of
any link between her escape and his death. The State party points out that
the District Court's judgement of 25 January 1999 regarded Mrs. S.A.'s
testimony as unreliable.
4.12 The State party refers to the Committee's jurisprudence that, even
assuming the existence of a gross pattern of serious violations, additional
grounds must be shown why an individual would personally be at risk of
torture upon return to a country. (2) Moreover, "substantial grounds" for
apprehending such a fate must go beyond a mere possibility or suspicion of
torture.(3) Applying these tests to the instant case, the State party argues,
regarding the inconsistencies outlined above, that the authors have failed to
argue convincingly that there are substantial grounds for fearing a
"foreseeable, real and personal risk" of torture in their cases. The authors
have not satisfactorily established that they are at greater risk than other
Tamils resident in Colombo. They have never put themselves forward as
opponents of the Sri Lankan authorities, nor have they belonged to a
political party or movement. Nor do their accounts suggest close relatives
have been active, politically or otherwise, and have therefore attracted the