CCPR/C/121/D/2487/2014 hospitalized and 11 fundamental rights actions were filed in the Sri Lanka Supreme Court against the police.13 4.12 The State party indicates that the author has never provided copies of the evidence he allegedly provided to the trade union leader who decided to take legal action against the police force. The State party argues that the author does not seem to have had any involvement in the judicial inquiry or the police investigation, which started while the author was still in Sri Lanka.14 The State party highlights that there is no mention in the author’s May 2012 affidavit of his having provided evidence to trade union lawyers or testimony in support of a complaint. 4.13 Regarding the author’s claim that on 10 June 2011 he started to receive threatening telephone calls at home, the State party notes that, in the personal narrative he submitted as part of his pre-removal risk assessment application, the author only stated that his mother had received one threatening phone call on that date, but made no reference to having received other threatening calls. Additionally, the author’s May 2012 affidavit does not mention any threatening phone calls. 4.14 The State party maintains that the author provided inconsistent information in regard to the medical treatment he received the day after he was abducted and beaten. In his submission to the Committee, he states that his parents took him to Negombo hospital, where he was refused treatment and, as a result, his parents took him to the Keraminiya clinic. According to the document which the author refers to as a medical note, he received treatment from 1 to 7 July 2011 for physical injuries due to swelling. However, in his May 2012 affidavit, the author swore that after the 28 June 2011 attack he was hospitalized overnight; there is no mention of the hospital refusing to treat him or that he had to go to the Keraminiya clinic. 4.15 The State party also submits that the author has provided inconsistent information regarding how he obtained employment on the ship that took him to Canada. In his submission to the Committee, he claims that his father took him to family members in Kandy and paid a private ship to take him to Algeria where he joined a ship sailing to Canada. According to his pre-removal risk assessment application form, the author flew from Sri Lanka to Algeria on 11 July 2011, in possession of a valid Sri Lankan passport and other identification documents. Based on his Seafarer Record Book, the author arranged his employment with the M/V Lake Ontario on 13 June 2011 in Colombo. According to the employment contract he signed on 8 July 2011, the author agreed to take up his position with the M/V Lake Ontario on 11 July 2011. The State party submits that while a preremoval risk assessment application is not a sworn document, the author signed a declaration attesting that the information on the form and in support of his application was “truthful, complete and correct”. 4.16 Even if the Committee were to accept the author’s account as true, which the State party urges it not to do, the author has not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate that the alleged perpetrators of the incidents on 10 and 28 June 2011 were Sri Lankan government officials or the police; he never identifies them, but only refers to them as “the caller” and “four men”. Additionally, the author never claims that he fears persecution by the Sri Lankan authorities but merely states that “he is facing a great risk of danger should he be sent back to Sri Lanka which is evident from the flagrant violation of fundamental human rights still occurring in Sri Lanka today …”. 4.17 The State party considers that the author intends the Committee to infer that his alleged persecutors were either Sri Lankan authorities or acting on their behalf, but does not provide any evidence in that regard. According to the State party, the threat that the author 13 14 6 Lal Gunasekera, “Report on Katunayake police shooting still not released — unionists”, The Island, 4 July 2012. In an article entitled “Police brutality mindless, indiscriminate and excessive: petitioners” appearing in the Sunday Times (Sri Lanka) on 11 March 2012, it was reported that about 14 petitioners had filed fundamental rights actions as a result of injuries they sustained during the demonstration and that the injured petitioners included workers participating in the demonstration and bystanders, many of them mentioned by name. Sunil and Liyanage, “Sri Lankan court examines police shooting of FTZ worker”.