CCPR/C/113/D/2272/2013 The complaint 3.1 The author alleges that, by deporting him to Sri Lanka, Denmark would violate his rights under article 7 of the Covenant. He claims that he fears he will be killed by EPDP, as his two brothers and his cousin were. He also fears that, as he witnessed the murder of his cousin by two EPDP paramilitaries, EPDP has an interest in preventing him from identifying the perpetrators, and will therefore look for him if he returns to Sri Lanka. He also alleges that, in the light of the human rights situation in Sri Lanka and of his Tamil origins, he cannot seek protection from the State party authorities against EPDP. 3.2 The author also alleges that any Tamil perceived to have been linked to LTTE, even in a very tenuous manner, is at risk, upon return to Sri Lanka, of being subjected to torture or ill-treatment by the State party’s security forces. He recalls that he had provided food and clothes free of charge to some LTTE members while assisting his cousin in his shop, and that his brothers and cousin were killed by EPDP. 3.3 The author also stresses that recent reports refer to cases of former Sri Lankan (in particular Tamil) asylum seekers who were detained and ill-treated or tortured after having been forcibly returned to Sri Lanka upon rejection of their asylum claims, or after their voluntary return to Sri Lanka.5 These persons were questioned by the Sri Lankan authorities about their activities abroad, including alleged peaceful criticism of the Government of Sri Lanka. He adds that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has suspended the removal of a group of failed Tamil asylum seekers to Sri Lanka as it was concerned about their safety. He claims that, by forcibly returning him to Sri Lanka, the State party would put him at risk, as failed asylum seeker, of being detained, interrogated and ill-treated or tortured by the Sri Lankan authorities upon his arrival. State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 On 21 January 2014, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. The State party submits that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of his communication under article 7 of the Covenant. It considers that the author has not established that there are substantial grounds for believing that he will be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to Sri Lanka. The State party therefore considers that the communication is inadmissible. 4.2 The State party notes that the torture and assaults cases to which the author refers concern persons suspected of having links to LTTE, possibly through family members, and that it is not the author’s case. 4.3 The State party observes that the Refugee Appeals Board based its decision on the principles stressed in the European Court of Human Rights judgement, N. A. v. the United Kingdom,6 in which the Court stated inter alia that the deterioration of the security situation in Sri Lanka resulting in an increase in the number of human rights violations did not create a general risk to all Tamils returning to Sri Lanka. The Court further observed that both the assessment of the risk to ethnic Tamils with certain profiles and the assessment of whether individual acts of harassment would cumulatively amount to serious violations of human rights could be made only on a specific and individual basis. The State party also refers to five cases submitted to the European Court by ethnic Tamils challenging the decisions of 5 6 4 The authors refers to the 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, p. 8. Application No. 25904/07, judgement of 17 July 2008.