CAT/C/51/D/387/2009 House). On 25 February 2009, the Minister decided not to intervene. On 5 March 2009, the complainant was notified of the State party’s intention to deport him on 14 March 2009. 4.3 In addition to submitting his complaint to the Committee against Torture, the complainant also filed an application with the High Court of Australia for review of the decision of the immigration department officer who refused to refer his request for ministerial intervention of 27 May 2009 to the Minister for Immigration. The complainant’s removal was suspended and on 10 July 2009, the High Court dismissed the complainant’s application. On 14 October 2009, the Minister placed the complainant in community detention. 4.4 With regard to the complainant’s allegation of fear of torture by Sri Lankan authorities, the State party considers that the complainant has failed to substantiate a foreseeable, real and personal risk. During the asylum procedure, the complainant relied on documents from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and nongovernment organizations to support his claim that as a member and organizer of the UNP and JSS, he was personally at risk of maltreatment from Sri Lankan authorities. While the UNHCR guidelines issued in 2009 indicate that political figures and officials who publicly express criticism of the Sri Lankan Government are at risk of targeted action by Sri Lankan Government actors or pro-Government paramilitary groups, other material relied on by the complainant indicates that the majority of serious incidents have been directed towards electoral candidates. As the complainant has not provided evidence of continued political involvement with the UNP since leaving Sri Lanka and as there has been a significant lapse of time since his departure, these reports do not provide sufficient evidence that he would be at a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture upon return to Sri Lanka. 4.5 Furthermore, guidelines issued by UNHCR in 2010, in the context of an improved human rights and security situation following the end of the armed conflict between the Sri Lankan army and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in May 2009, indicate that there is no longer a need for “group-based” protection mechanisms. The 2010 guidelines note, however, that it is important to bear in mind that the situation in Sri Lanka is evolving.3 4.6 The treatment to which the complainant was subjected is not torture as defined by article 1 of the Convention against Torture. He claims that he was subjected to obstruction from work, verbal and physical abuse, mistreatment of personal belongings, destruction of property and a death threat. The Committee has in the past considered that the burning of a house in the absence of other aggravating circumstances (such as people occupying the house at the time of destruction) does not constitute torture.4 Furthermore, the complainant had submitted a request for assistance to the UNHCR office in Canberra, which decided that there were insufficient grounds to intervene with the Australian authorities on behalf of the complainant. 4.7 The State party considers that if returned to Sri Lanka, the complainant could use his affiliation to the UNP to relocate elsewhere in the country. Indeed, the UNP has strong representatives throughout the country and governs certain local councils in the complainant’s district. The State party notes that the Committee, in its jurisprudence, has 3 4 6 The State party cites UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from Sri Lanka, 5 July 2010 (HCR/EG/SLK/10/03) available at http://www.refworld.org/docid/4c31a5b82.html . The State party cites Committee against Torture, communication No. 161/2000, Dzemajl et al v. Yugoslavia, decision adopted on 21 November 2002, para. 9.2.