CCPR/C/127/D/2276/2013 risk of persecution upon return to Sri Lanka. The author argues that the Division erred in focusing on the claims made in his application for asylum in the United States. He claims that the inconsistencies between the statements made in the United States and those made in Canada were the result of errors made by the interpreter. The author applied to the Federal Court for leave to seek judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Protection Division. On 10 June 2013, the Federal Court rejected his application for a judicial review. The author argues that he was not afforded a fair opportunity to contest the merits of the negative decision of the Division, as judicial review of such a decision is conducted on a “reasonableness” standard rather than a “correctness” standard; according to statistics from 2006, leave is only granted by the Federal Court in 10 per cent of applications. The complaint 3. The author submits that his deportation to Sri Lanka would amount to a violation of his rights under articles 6, 7, 9 (1), 23 (1) and 24 (1) of the Covenant. He claims that if he were to be returned to Sri Lanka he would be arrested, detained and tortured by the security forces of Sri Lanka or paramilitary groups working with the Government because he is a young Tamil male from the north of the country; he has scars on his body and scars are indicators used by the authorities to accuse young Tamils of being LTTE members or supporters;1 he has already been detained and ill-treated in a camp for internally displaced persons in the past; and he would be returned as a failed asylum seeker. The author claims that these factors put him at serious risk of being subjected to persecution in Sri Lanka as the authorities would perceive him to be an LTTE member or supporter. He argues that his life would therefore be at serious risk if he were to be returned to Sri Lanka. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 14 February 2014, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. The State party submits that the communication should be found to be inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. It notes that on 21 November 2013, the author became eligible to apply for a pre-removal risk assessment and to apply for permanent residence on the basis of humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The author submitted an application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds on 23 December 2013, which at the time of the State party’s submission of its observations was still pending, but he had not submitted a pre-removal risk assessment application. The State party recognizes that these remedies were not available to the author at the time of the filing of the communication before the Committee but it submits that the commencement of a new remedial process by the author subsequent to the filing of a communication can render that communication inadmissible. 4.2 The State party further submits that the author’s claims under article 9 (1) of the Covenant are inadmissible owing to incompatibility with the scope of that provision. It argues that the provision does not impose an obligation on States parties to refrain from removing individuals who face a risk of arbitrary detention in the receiving State. It argues that a risk of arbitrary detention in the receiving State may form part of the factual context for allegations of irreparable harm contrary to articles 6 or 7 of the Covenant, but it submits that it does not engage the State party’s obligations under article 9 of the Covenant. 4.3 The State party finally submits that the author’s claims are inadmissible in their entirety as being manifestly unfounded. It notes that the State party’s authorities determined that none of the alleged incidents of detention and ill-treatment after January 2010 were credible. Moreover, country reports on conditions in Sri Lanka do not support the notion that any aspect of the author’s profile – including his scars – could give rise to a real risk of irreparable harm upon return to Sri Lanka. The State party therefore argues that the author has not substantiated his claim that his removal would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligations under articles 6, 7 or 9 (1) of the Covenant. It further notes that the author has made no arguments and provided no evidence to support an alleged violation of 1 The author refers to a report by Freedom from Torture, “Out of the silence: new evidence of ongoing torture in Sri Lanka – 2009–2011”. 3