CCPR/C/121/D/2643/2015 Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), rejected asylum seekers and returnees appear to be at risk of torture if accused of anti-government political activity or of links to LTTE.16 3.4 She adds that, in recent Views regarding failed Tamil asylum seekers, the Committee stated that State parties have an obligation to engage with the risk attached to being a failed asylum seeker from Sri Lanka with links to LTTE.17 The author also observes that, in several cases, the Danish Refugee Appeals Board has granted residence to Tamils who were affiliated or assumed to be affiliated with LTTE, whether themselves or through family members. The author further submits that the Board has not considered at any point of the asylum procedure her risk of ill-treatment in the event of her return to Sri Lanka as a failed asylum seeker. 3.5 Furthermore, the author contends that several countries have halted all deportations to Sri Lanka because of the numerous reports of arrest and torture of Sri Lankans who have returned to their country after having lived abroad. The author further points out that, in two cases, rejected asylum seekers have claimed that they were detained and tortured following their return from Switzerland to Sri Lanka. After non-governmental organizations made these cases public, the Swiss Federal Office for Migration announced that it would examine these cases and would temporarily stop all expulsions to Sri Lanka until the results of the investigations into the alleged cases of torture were available. Furthermore, the Federal Office for Migration would closely re-examine all cases of Sri Lankans whose asylum applications had been rejected and who must leave Switzerland. 3.6 The author considers that she faces a real and personal risk of irreparable harm because of her ethnicity and because her connection to LTTE is known by the Sri Lankan authorities. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 17 March 2016, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits of the communication, elaborating on the author’s asylum proceedings and the Danish Refugee Appeals Board’s decisions of 20 June 2013, 17 September 2013, 10 January 2014 and 22 June 2015. 4.2 The State party describes the structure, composition and functioning of the Board, which it considers to be an independent, quasi-judicial body.18 The State party submits that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of her communication under article 7 of the Covenant. In its view, the author has not demonstrated that she would face a real and personal risk of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated in article 7 of the Covenant. 19 Therefore, the communication should be considered inadmissible as manifestly unfounded. 4.3 On the merits, the State party contends that the author has not sufficiently established that the return of her and her children to Sri Lanka would constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 4.4 In its decisions of 20 June 2013 and 17 September 2013, the Board considered the author’s initial grounds for claiming asylum, i.e. her fear of being persecuted in the event of her return to Sri Lanka due to her former husband’s affiliation with LTTE. Later on, the author withdrew those grounds for asylum and stated that they had been fabricated for the occasion. In its decision of 10 January 2014, the Board considered the author’s subsequent 16 17 18 19 See UNHCR, Sri Lanka: Country of Origin Information Relating to the Targeting of Ex-LTTE Members/Combatants, 3 February 2014, available from: http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/555c44d04.pdf. See communication No. 2272/2013, P.T. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 1 April 2015, in which three members of the Committee issued a dissenting opinion, stating, inter alia, in para. 3: “The State party’s observations in the case under review never meaningfully engage with the risk attached to being a failed asylum seeker.” See for example communication No. 2379/2014, Obah Hussein Ahmed v. Denmark, Views adopted on 7 July 2016, paras. 4.1–4.3. See for example communication No. 2007/2010, X v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2. 5