CCPR/C/127/D/2484/2014 NGOs are attacked even if they are not critical of the Government. The Division found that the Foundation worked with the United Nations with the approval of the Government. 4.7 The Amnesty International report for 2014/2015 on Sri Lanka states that human rights defenders were threatened and otherwise abused.5 It is not suggested in the report that this pattern extends to current or former NGO workers who are not engaged in public advocacy. In its report for 2013, Amnesty International suggested there was State repression of aid workers, but in the report itself examples are described of such violence taking place during the civil war, of attacks on persons accused of supporting the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam or of attacks on persons who were actively critical of the Government. Similarly, a 2015 report by Human Rights Watch describes a crackdown on human rights defenders and other activists, but cites no threats against aid workers. 4.8 The author cites a document published by the Research Directorate of the Immigration and Refugee Board stating that failed refugee claimants who return to Sri Lanka may be at increasing risk of encountering “difficulties with the authorities” if they have been involved with NGOs. The relevant passage, however, comes from a report produced by the Home Office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 2009, which merely indicated that persons who had, for example, been involved with an NGO might be questioned by the authorities, not that they would be subjected to a real risk of irreparable harm. 4.9 The Refugee Protection Division also found that that the documents concerning discrimination against Tamils showed that the Tamils might face more severe treatment when they were suspected of opposing the Government or having a connection to the Tamil Tigers. The author had not shown, however, that he was suspected of any such activities. Several reports confirm these statements, for example one from the Netherlands Council of State, a judicial body that serves as the highest court in the country for appeal against executive branch decisions, which confirmed that the Sri Lankan authorities were capable of distinguishing ordinary Sri Lankan returnees, including former asylum seekers, from activists who posed a risk to the unity of Sri Lanka because they played a significant role in separatist Tamil organizations. Based on such reports, the State party submits that even if the Sri Lankan authorities identify the author as a returning Tamil male from the Northern Province who has unsuccessfully sought protection in Canada, that will not lead the authorities to subject the author to irreparable harm. 4.10 On 3 September 2014, the author applied to the Federal Court for leave to seek a judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Protection Division. The Federal Court dismissed the author’s application without providing any reasons (in accordance with its usual practice). On 27 October 2014, the author was served with a “direction to report” form, indicating that he was scheduled to be removed on 27 November 2014. On 26 November 2014, the author submitted a communication and a request for interim measures from the Committee. As a consequence, the State party temporarily deferred the removal of the author. 4.11 The State party submits that the author’s communication is inadmissible in whole or in part due to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. When the author was notified in October 2014 that he was scheduled for removal the following month, he failed to request an administrative deferral of removal from the Canada Border Services Agency. Although enforcement officers have limited discretion as to the timing of removal, the Federal Court of Appeal has repeatedly held that enforcement officers must defer removal if there is “compelling evidence” that the removal would expose a person to “a risk of death, extreme sanction or inhumane treatment”. The author did not pursue this remedy. 4.12 Furthermore, the alleged risk of arbitrary detention in Sri Lanka does not engage the State party’s obligations under article 9 of the Covenant. According to the Committee’s general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, the obligation of non-removal is limited to situations “where there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant”. Similarly, the European Court of Human Rights has not handed down any decisions in which it found that a returning State 5 4 The State party refers to the Amnesty International Report 2014/15: The State of the World’s Human Rights (February 2015).