CCPR/C/121/D/2643/2015 released. Additionally, the Sri Lankan authorities have never carried out any acts directly targeted at the author. In this regard, reference is made to the judgments delivered by the European Court of Human Rights on 20 January 2011 concerning five applications submitted by ethnic Tamils from Sri Lanka against Denmark, in which the Court said that returning the applicants to Sri Lanka would not constitute a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.21 4.13 As regards the author’s reference to the Committee’s Views in the case P.T. v. Denmark, the State party recalls the Committee’s jurisprudence that important weight should be given to the assessments conducted by the State party, unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 22 The State party adds that exposure to a past risk does not imply a risk at present, and that the author needs to present evidence that the authorities have been looking for her or have shown some interest in her whereabouts in the recent past. 23 4.14 The State party further submits that, according to the UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from Sri Lanka, of 21 December 2012, certain groups of persons with links to LTTE may be subjected to treatment that may give rise to a need for international refugee protection, including persons who have held senior positions or persons with considerable authority in the LTTE civilian administration, former LTTE combatants, and persons with family links or who are otherwise closely related to such persons. Other background reports also appear to contain no information that would lead to the assumption that Tamils such as the author with a lowrisk profile would be subjected to persecution or abuse upon their return to Sri Lanka that would justify asylum.24 In its decision of 22 June 2015, the Danish Refugee Appeals Board made a specific and individual assessment of the author’s situation taking into account the background information available and found that the author was not at risk of persecution or abuse in the event of her return to Sri Lanka. The fact that the author returns as a failed asylum seeker cannot in itself lead to a different assessment either, as she has no conflicts with the Sri Lankan authorities. 4.15 As regards the author’s fear of her former spouse, the Board considered that incidents of abuse relating to conflicts between former spouses were private sphere conflicts, which normally did not justify the granting of residence. Concerned women would instead have to seek protection from the authorities in their country of origin. However, in its jurisprudence the Board recognized that certain kinds of abuse by private individuals may be of such scope and intensity as to amount to persecution if the authorities are not able or willing to offer protection. In its decision of 10 January 2014, the Board considered that the author had not rendered it probable that she would be unable to obtain protection from the Sri Lankan authorities. It also noted that the author and her former husband had lived separately since his imprisonment on 5 March 2013 and following his return to Sri Lanka at the end of 2013. Furthermore, the author reported her former spouse to the Swiss police for violence and sexual abuse, he was sentenced in Switzerland on that ground, and she testified against him in Danish criminal proceedings. Therefore, the author cannot be considered particularly vulnerable with regard to her former spouse, and she has 21 22 23 24 8 See European Court of Human Rights, N.S. v. Denmark (application No. 58359/08); P.K. v. Denmark (application No. 54705/08); S.S. and others v. Denmark (application No. 54703/08); T.N. and S.N. v. Denmark (application No. 36517/08); and T.N. v. Denmark (application No. 20594/08). See P.T. v. Denmark, paras. 7.3 and 7.4. The State party also refers to further jurisprudence of the Committee in that regard, including communications No. 2393/2014, K v. Denmark, Views adopted on 16 July 2015, paras. 7.4 and 7.5; No. 2426/2014, N v. Denmark, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 23 July 2015, para. 6.6; No. 2186/2012, Mr. X and Ms. X v. Denmark, Views adopted on 22 October 2014, para. 7.5; and No. 2329/2014, Z v. Denmark, Views adopted on 15 July 2015, para. 7.4. See, for example, communication No. 429/2010, Mallikathevi Sivagnanaratnam v. Denmark, decision by the Committee against Torture of 2 December 2013, paras. 10.5 and 10.6. See for example Human Rights Watch, “We Will Teach You a Lesson” — Sexual Violence against Tamils by Sri Lankan Security Forces, 26 February 2013; United States of America Department of State, Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2014 — Sri Lanka, 25 June 2015; and Danish Refugee Council, Tilbagevenden til Sri Lanka (Return to Sri Lanka), December 2014.