CAT/C/61/D/659/2015 Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 In his submissions of 19 August 2015 and 17 December 2015, the complainant reiterates his initial claims. As to the State party’s argument that the complainant does not make any connection between his detention in 1995 and the family’s fear of persecution, the complainant submits that the aforementioned detention, under section 19 (2) of the Emergency Regulations dealing with terrorist activities is one factor among many others for his fear of torture in his country of origin. He refers to a recent report issued by Organisation Suisse d’Aide aux Réfugiés,17 according to which, the Sri Lankan authorities keep records of arrests going back many years. 5.2 The complainant recalls that he and his family were harassed over several years. In that connection, he submits that torture can consist not only of physical, but also mental harm, and that many measures that may not be torture in themselves can amount to torture cumulatively. 5.3 With regard to the State party’s argument that, as a former United Nations employee, he is not subject to a particular risk of torture or harm at the hands of the Sri Lankan authorities and that “employment with the United Nations simply cannot be perceived as anti-Government activity”, the complainant submits that the State party failed to consider his particular duties with the United Nations. He adds that, according to a recognized principle of refugee law, what does or does not constitute anti-Government activity depends on the point of view of the asylum seeker’s country of origin and not that of the asylum country. Reporting on the security situation in Sri Lanka can be very detrimental to one or both parties to the conflict, especially since both committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. Furthermore, in addition to reporting on the security situation, the complainant was also a liaison officer between the Sri Lankan forces, including the paramilitary groups, and LTTE. While carrying out his duties, the complainant had encountered many problems with the Sri Lankan forces and paramilitary groups. His last service evaluation from the United Nations mentions that he and his family had been threatened. The complainant further submits that, as a United Nations employee he was also a humanitarian worker, since he dealt with various United Nations organizations, including UNICEF, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the World Food Programme. Contrary to the State party’s claims, his individual circumstances put him at serious risk of persecution, since his activities as a United Nations employee and humanitarian worker were considered anti-Government activities. 5.4 A number of recent reports on the general human rights situation in Sri Lanka and on the risk faced by failed asylum seekers18 indicate that any link to LTTE, at any level or even one that existed a long time ago, can put a failed asylum seeker at risk of torture. In the present case, there exists a link to LTTE because of the complainant’s detention in 1995, his work for the United Nations, the family’s failed asylum claim in Canada — the country with the largest Tamil diaspora — and the family’s long absence from Sri Lanka. 5.5 The complainant submits that the fact that his daughter and son-in-law, who have remained in Sri Lanka, were not killed — although someone attempted to do so (see paragraph 4.4) — does not mean that he and his family will not face any risk of serious harm upon their return. To hold otherwise would mean that, unless all his family members in Sri Lanka are killed, there cannot be a serious risk for him and other members of his family. 5.6 The complainant recalls that all effective remedies with suspensive effect had been exhausted at the time of submission of the present complaint to the Committee and that he 17 18 8 See Organisation Suisse d’Aide aux Réfugiés, “Sri Lanka: dangers liés au renvoi des personnes d’origine tamoule”, 16 June 2015, p. 14. Reference is made to Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, “Responses to Information Requests”, LKA105041.E, 11 February 2015, on the treatment of suspected members or supporters of LTTE; Organisation Suisse d’Aide aux Réfugiés, “Sri Lanka: dangers liés au renvoi des personnes d’origine tamoule”, 16 June 2015, pp. 12 and 19; and Blue Mountains Refugee Support Group, “Sri Lanka, Australia and asylum seekers 2013-2014: Country guidance update for refugee supporters”, October 2014.