CCPR/C/121/D/2643/2015 2.11 On 22 June 2015, the Board again refused to reopen the author’s case, finding the author’s new statement on the alleged risks of abuse due to her and her family’s affiliation with LTTE to be non-credible. The author had submitted that her new statement was the same as the statement that she had made in Switzerland when she had allegedly been granted asylum there13 and that, according to the logic used by the Board, the author had made false statements both in Switzerland and Denmark. According to the author, the Board emphasized that no substantial new information had been submitted in the case beyond the information available at the initial hearing. The Board relied on its decision of 20 June 2013 in which it had stated, inter alia, that regardless of whether the Board may consider the applicants’ statements as facts, the majority of the members of the Board found no basis for granting residence to the applicants under section 7 of the Aliens Act, as the male applicant’s affiliation with LTTE was only very limited.14 The Board also concluded that the circumstance of the Sri Lankan Army soldiers having subjected the female applicant to sexual abuse in 2009 and 2010 could not independently justify granting her residence. According to the Board, the author’s claim that, if returned to Sri Lanka, she would be at risk of abuse due to her and her family’s affiliation with LTTE and threats from her former husband also did not constitute grounds for a different assessment. 15 The author also submits that the Board further found that the generally difficult situation of women in north-eastern Sri Lanka and the conditions for ethnic Tamils are not of such nature as to independently justify residence. 2.12 The author claims that she has exhausted all available and effective domestic remedies, as the decisions of the Board cannot be appealed before the Danish courts. The author has not submitted her communication to any other procedure of international investigation or settlement. The complaint 3.1 The author claims that Denmark would violate its obligations under article 7 of the Covenant by forcibly removing her and her minor children to Sri Lanka. 3.2 The author fears that she would be arrested, together with her children, by the authorities immediately upon arrival in Sri Lanka, due to her and her family’s affiliation with LTTE, and would suffer treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. In particular, she is afraid that she would be detained, beaten, raped or tortured by the Sri Lankan Army and that she would end up dead or permanently disabled like her brother. Moreover, the author also fears her violent former husband, who has threatened to kill her if she returns to Sri Lanka. The author cannot seek protection from the Sri Lankan authorities as, if she did so, she would face even more exposure and, consequently, ill-treatment due to her affiliation with LTTE. 3.3 In addition, the author has submitted a number of reports and articles concerning sexual violence against Tamils, as well as articles about failed asylum seekers returning to Sri Lanka, who are at risk of being subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. For example, according to the Office of the United Nations High 13 14 15 4 However, as indicated by the State party, the author’s information on acquiring asylum in Switzerland is not correct, as she only obtained a temporary residence permit. The author’s former husband was perceived as merely helping LTTE as a kitchen assistant and also appeared to be a very low-profile individual. The circumstances of the male applicant having been detained and subjected to harsh treatment by the Sri Lankan Army in 2009 because of his assistance to LTTE and having subsequently escaped from the military camp where he had been detained were not deemed to be of crucial importance at the time of the decision. Hence, the majority of the Board members concluded that the male applicant had failed to render it probable that, due to his escape, he was at risk of being subjected to disproportionate punishment or other inhuman treatment or persecution if returned to Sri Lanka. The Board did not provide further arguments to support its conclusions.