CCPR/C/127/D/2276/2013 certain individuals of Tamil ethnicity who are suspected of having links to LTTE may be in need of international protection.8 8.6 The Committee, however, notes that the author does not argue that he, or any family member, was ever a member of LTTE or that he has participated, supported or been involved in the activities of LTTE in any manner; rather, he submits that his Tamil ethnicity, his alleged detentions, his scars and his status as a failed asylum seeker constitute sufficient elements to conclude that he would be perceived as a person with links to LTTE. Against this background, the Committee notes that the Refugee Protection Division rejected the author’s refugee application since it concluded that the author had failed to demonstrate that he had any connection to LTTE and would therefore be of no interest to the Sri Lankan authorities, nor did he fall under any other risk category that could indicate that he would be of interest to the Sri Lankan authorities. The Committee further notes that parts of the author’s claims were also found to lack credibility owing to discrepancies in the account of events he presented to Canadian immigration authorities, compared with those he had previously presented to immigration authorities in the United States. Additionally, the Committee notes that there are also discrepancies in the author’s account of events as to the scars on his body. He initially stated in his application for asylum in Canada that the scars had been inflicted in a shelling attack during the war. He later stated, in his pre-removal risk assessment application, that he had obtained scars as a result of torture. The Committee also finally notes the State party’s argument that the author left Sri Lanka legally in 2011, travelling by air on his own passport, without having reported any problems faced in departing from Sri Lanka. While the author disagrees with the conclusions reached by the State party authorities, the Committee finds that the facts before it do not allow it to conclude that the authorities’ assessment of the facts and evidence was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice. Accordingly, the Committee cannot conclude that the information before it shows that the author would face a personal and real risk of treatment contrary to articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant if he were to be removed to Sri Lanka. 9. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the author’s removal to Sri Lanka would not be a violation by the State party of articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant. 8 10 Y. v. Canada (CCPR/C/114/D/2280/2013), para. 7.6.