CCPR/C/127/D/2276/2013 5.2 On 17 December 2015, the author submitted further comments on the State party’s observations. He refers to country reports 5 and reiterates his claim that as a young Sri Lankan male of Tamil ethnicity with several visible scars and refused refugee status, he would be at risk of being detained, tortured or killed by the State authorities or other groups, if returned to Sri Lanka. Additional observations From the State party 6.1 On 21 June 2016, the State party submitted further observations. It noted that the author had received a negative determination on his pre-removal risk assessment application on 8 June 2015. However, this decision was set aside by the Federal Court in an application for judicial review on 18 February 2016. The pre-removal risk assessment decision was set aside by the court as the pre-removal risk assessment officer had failed to consider the most recent evidence on country conditions, and as the officer had unreasonably rejected evidence from several human rights organizations. The application was therefore remitted for redetermination by a different assessment officer by the court. From the author 6.2 On 14 July 2017, the author informed that he had received a negative determination on the remitted pre-removal risk assessment application on 31 May 2017. In the decision the pre-removal risk assessment officer noted that the application consisted mainly of the same claims as those presented during the Refugee Protection Division hearing. The officer noted that the author had submitted photographs of marks on his shoulder which he claimed had been sustained through torture. The officer noted that the photographs were unclear and demonstrating simply what appeared to be two circular marks on the author’s left shoulder. The officer found that the author had not substantiated that the marks were consistent with torture, and additionally that the author had not explained how and when the marks had been obtained. In reviewing various country reports the pre-removal risk assessment officer noted that conditions in Sri Lanka had improved with the election of a new Government and President in 2015, but that nevertheless there continued to be serious problems of human rights abuses by the security forces in Sri Lanka. The pre-removal risk assessment officer noted that country reports referred to profiles of individuals most at risk, which could be summarized as: those with a real or perceived connection to LTTE; those who had been or continued to be active in promoting Tamil separatism; those who had been critical of the Government of Sri Lanka, such as journalists and human rights defenders; and those wanted for having committed crimes in Sri Lanka. The pre-removal risk assessment officer concluded that the author had not put forward any evidence substantiating that he would fall under such a risk category. 6.3 The author argues that the pre-removal risk assessment officer simply repeated the conclusions reached by the Refugee Protection Division. He reiterates his argument that country reports indicate that he would be at risk of persecution upon return to Sri Lanka, especially taking into account that his scarring would put him at risk of being perceived to 5 The author refers to the Human Rights Watch Report 2015, in which is it stated that the Government’s treatment of Tamils forcibly returned to Sri Lanka after being denied asylum overseas continued to be a significant concern and that serious concerns remain about the forced return of nationals of Sri Lanka who seek asylum abroad, including the use of torture against people suspected of links to LTTE. The author also refers to a 2014/2015 Amnesty International report that contains references to continuing discrimination against ethnic, linguistic and religious minorities, including members of Tamil communities. In that report, it is noted that Tamils, particularly those from the north of the country, were harassed, threatened and arrested by security forces that suspected them of sympathy or links with LTTE. The author finally refers to the report “A still unfinished war: Sri Lanka’s survivors of torture and sexual violence 2009–2015” by the International Truth and Justice Project – Sri Lanka (2015), in which it was stated that post-war violations by the security forces painted a chilling picture of the continuation of the three-decade-long conflict against the Tamil community, the purpose of which was to sow terror and destabilize those Tamil community members left behind. 7