CCPR/C/121/D/2487/2014 11.8 The Committee further notes the assessment of the State party’s authorities that the author lacked credibility as he had provided inconsistent and contradictory evidence. It particularly notes the State party’s submission that in his May 2012 affidavit, the author did not mention having been present at the Karunyake Free Trade Zone demonstration, having witnessed his cousin’s murder or having provided evidence about the murder. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the author’s claim that he witnessed R.C.’s death during the police shootout and that he arranged for an ambulance to take him to hospital but that it was too late and he died is not consistent with the information reported in the media: the press articles submitted by the author indicate that the police took R.C. away in a jeep, but that he was left untreated and bled for two hours in police custody before being taken to the hospital where he died two days later. 11.9 The Committee also notes that the author’s statement is neither consistent with the information provided by the Asian Human Rights Commission in the framework of an urgent appeal case concerning the killing of R.C., which states that “after the shooting the injured workers were brought to the Kesselwatte Police Station. They, with [R.C.] amongst them, were kept in the police compound without being afforded medical assistance. The denial of medical assistance to an injured prisoner or suspect constitutes torture under the laws of the country. [R.C] underwent several surgeries in an attempt to save his life but by 7.30 p.m. of 1 June 2011 he had succumbed to his injuries.”31 11.10 Regarding the author’s claim that he is at risk upon return to Sri Lanka as he would be perceived as a traitor who has discredited the country abroad, the Committee, while not underestimating the concerns that may legitimately be expressed with respect to the human rights situation in Sri Lanka, notes that during the internal procedures, the State party’s authorities also considered this possible risk and is of the view that, in the present case, the State party’s authorities gave appropriate consideration to the author’s claims. 11.11 In the light of the above, the Committee cannot conclude that the information before it shows that the author will face a real risk of treatment contrary to articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant if he were removed to Sri Lanka. 12. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the removal of the author to Sri Lanka would not violate his rights under articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant. 31 14 Asian Human Rights Commission, “Sri Lanka: denial of prosecuting the police officers responsible for killing of FTZ worker destroys faith in the country’s legal system”, urgent appeal case AHRCUAC-184-2011, 30 September 2011, available from www.humanrights.asia/news/urgentappeals/AHRC-UAC-184-2011/?searchterm=roshanchanaka.