CCPR/C/121/D/2487/2014 allegedly faced in 2011 was perpetrated by local actors. It is therefore likely that upon his return to Sri Lanka, the author would have a viable internal flight alternative, as demonstrated by the fact that the author was able to stay in Kandy for a number of weeks without incident prior to leaving for Algeria, and that his parents and sisters have relocated. The State party further submits that, based on the Eligibility Guidelines issued by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in 2012 and the new legislation designed to protect witnesses of human rights violations, the author would be able to access State protection from any local non-State entities that may seek him out upon return. 4.18 The State party further submits that, according to the Eligibility Guidelines, not all persons who may have characteristics consistent with risk profiles are entitled to international protection. 15 The majority of examples cited in the Guidelines refers to individuals who were victimized by Sri Lankan authorities and who sought redress for their victimization or were witnesses who testified before the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission. The Guidelines also state that both perceived political opinion and race are important additional characteristics to be taken into account.16 4.19 The State party submits that this is consistent with the findings of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in G.J. and others 17 that the focus of the Sri Lankan Government has changed since the civil war ended and is now on those individuals who put the stability and unity of Sri Lanka at risk, in particular members of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) or similar Tamil separatist organization. The “perceived political opinion” in the 2012 Eligibility Guidelines refers to political opinions supporting the destabilization of Sri Lanka or separatism. The author therefore does not fall within the definition of “witness to human rights violations” as understood in the Guidelines. 4.20 In addition, the State party submits that on 19 February 2015, the Sri Lankan Government enacted legislation designed to provide witnesses and victims with protection and assistance.18 It further argues that the situation in Sri Lanka has improved since 2015, given that President Maithripala Sirisena has undertaken to work towards reconciliation of all ethnicities and religions according to the recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission. Since the new Government came into office, journalists, media professionals and human rights activists have more freedom to express themselves and talk in public in a safe working environment. 4.21 The State party submits that, according to the press articles referred to by the author, the actions of the police which resulted in the death of R.C. were widely publicized and severely criticized. It considers that the mere fact that the author may have witnessed and provided information about the murder of R.C. in 2011 is not sufficient to demonstrate that he would be at a real and personal risk of irreparable harm upon his return to Sri Lanka. 4.22 Regarding the author’s claim that he will be at risk of irreparable harm if he is returned to Sri Lanka because he will be regarded as a traitor who discredited Sri Lanka abroad, the State party submits that the Schweizerische Flüchtlingshilfe report on which he relies points out that “there is admittedly no evidence that all returnees are abducted, arrested and tortured in a systematic way”.19 15 16 17 18 19 The Eligibility Guidelines specifically recognize that “certain witnesses of human rights violations and victims of human rights violations seeking justice”, a category with which the author appears to identify, may require international refugee protection depending on the individual circumstances of their cases. According to the Guidelines, this category involves persons seeking justice after mistreatment by the police, given that there have been allegations that such people have reportedly been harassed and received threats in an attempt to make them withdraw their complaints. Depending on the individual circumstances of a given case, persons with this profile are likely to be in need of international refugee protection “on account of their (perceived) political opinion”. UNHCR, Eligibility Guidelines, p. 32. Available from www.refworld.org/pdfid/51da951c4.pdf. “Sri Lanka parliament enacts witness protection law”, Jurist, 20 February 2015, available from http://jurist.org/paperchase/2015/02/sri-lanka-enacts-witness-protection-law.php. Schweizerische Flüchtlingshilfe, “Sri Lanka: current situation”, p. 19. 7