attention of the Sri Lankan authorities. The activities that the authors profess to have performed under duress for LTTE are trivial in nature and extent. Additional observations by the author 5.1 By letter of 10 April 2000, the authors restate their contention that they have demonstrated substantial grounds for believing that they are at personal risk of torture, thereby putting the State party in breach of article 3 of the Convention in the event of a return. 5.2 The authors claim that both parents left the country, separately, on false passports and therefore did not experience any problems in leaving. They contest the State party's claim that the authorities impute no political involvement to them, stating that while they were not officially members of any group, both were suspected of connections to LTTE. Mr. S.S. was suspected of spying for LTTE and being in Colombo with ill intentions, while Mrs. S.A. was accused of working for LTTE and employed to identify LTTE members at roadblocks. In this regard, the authors contend that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs report ascribes a risk of being held for more than a week to Tamils suspected of having knowledge of LTTE. 5.3 As to Mr. S.S.'s account, the authors reject the State party's assertion that, upon Mr. S.S.'s release from police custody, he was free to do as he pleased and that they had no special interest in him; how could this be the case if he had to report to the police daily? The authors reject the State party's classification, in the absence of proof, of Mr. S.S.'s placement on the Boosa transfer list as "implausible", claiming that such a conclusion does not follow simply from being released after a day. Nor, claim the authors, had Mr. S.S.'s statements during the asylum procedure previously been doubted or considered implausible, nor had there been a request for further information on this aspect. There was therefore no reason to doubt this particular important statement. Similarly, simply because the account of the death of Mr. S.S.'s father was perhaps mistakenly transcribed did not make the statement unreliable. 5.4 As to Mrs. S.A.'s account, the authors wish to underline that she had told the authorities that she had been forced to work for LTTE, and the State party's statement that she cannot be regarded as an LTTE activist cannot be substantiated. The State party allegedly ignores her use as an informer to denounce alleged LTTE members. Concerning her uncle's death, the authors claim that, while unable to produce a death certificate, there is no reason to doubt the information. The District Court's judgement on witness credibility is no reason to doubt her statements, which the authors contend had never been doubted by the State party. Therefore, Mrs. S.A. ought to be given the benefit of the doubt on this issue.