CCPR/C/127/D/2276/2013 Directorate of Canada on the processes generally followed when Tamil males return to Sri Lanka after unsuccessfully seeking asylum elsewhere. That information indicated that they would likely be interviewed by the Criminal Investigation Department and the State Intelligence Service, to determine whether they had left the country illegally. The Refugee Protection Division observed that none of the special risk factors identified in country reports applied to the author as he had left Sri Lanka legally on his own passport and was in possession of his national identity card and birth certificate. In addition, he had no criminal record, there was no evidence that he had been connected to LTTE, and there was no outstanding arrest warrant. Therefore, the Refugee Protection Division found that his profile together with the documentation in his possession most likely would result in him being detained for no more than a few hours. The Division noted that, considering his profile, the scarring he had received following a shelling attack would not draw the attention of the authorities of Sri Lanka and concluded that there was no reasonable chance or serious possibility that the author would be persecuted if he were to return to Sri Lanka. 4.6 The State party notes that in his complaint the author claimed that he had not been afforded a fair opportunity to contest the merits of the negative Refugee Protection Division decision. The State party submits that the author’s claim is incompatible with the scope of the Covenant and the Optional Protocol as it does not fall within the scope of the Committee’s review under an individual complaint to consider the general effectiveness of the Canadian immigration and protection system. The State party further argues that the author’s claims are also manifestly unfounded. It argues that the author has not provided any evidence to substantiate that this domestic remedial avenue was ineffective or unfair in his particular case. With the assistance of counsel, the author applied for leave to seek judicial review of the Refugee Protection Division decision. It notes that an application to the Federal Court for leave to seek judicial review, including with respect to Division decisions, has consistently been recognized by the Human Rights Committee as a procedure that must be exhausted for the purposes of admissibility and that the Committee against Torture has taken the same approach. It argues that the current system of judicial review by the Federal Court provides for an examination on the merits in the sense that it allows for review of both the law and the facts. 4.7 As concerns the merits of the communication, the State party notes that the author claims that he would face risks of irreparable harm if returned to Sri Lanka as the Criminal Investigation Department or other State authorities would suspect him of having links to the LTTE and because the Eelam People’s Democratic Party might continue its efforts to subject his family to extortion by detaining him. The State party argues that objective reports on current conditions in Sri Lanka indicate that simply being a Tamil male from the north of the country does not put a person at risk of irreparable harm from State actors.3 The State party argues that, on the basis of country reports, the only potentially relevant risk profile in the author’s case would be if he would risk being suspected of having significant and concrete links to LTTE.4 The State party argues that the author would not fall under 3 The State party refers to the following documents: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, “UNHCR eligibility guidelines for assessing the international protection needs of asylum-seekers from Sri Lanka”, 21 December 2012, according to which originating from an area that was previously controlled by LTTE does not in itself result in a need for international refugee protection in the sense of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol thereto. United Kingdom: Home Office, Operational Guidance Note: Sri Lanka, July 2013, OGN v.14, in which it was concluded that being of Tamil ethnicity would not in itself normally warrant international protection. 4 Australia Refugee Review Tribunal, RRT Case No. 1304427, [2013] RRTA 689, 11 October 2013, in which it was concluded that there was no longer any presumption of international protection needed on a collective basis for reason of being a Tamil, or being a Tamil from an area formerly under LTTE control. The State party refers to the “UNHCR eligibility guidelines for assessing the international protection needs of asylum-seekers from Sri Lanka”, 21 December 2012, and the United Kingdom Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) in GJ and others (post-civil war returnees), Sri Lanka CG v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2013] UKUT 00319 (IAC), in which it was 5