CCPR/C/113/D/2272/2013 the Danish authorities to deport them to Sri Lanka. In all those decisions, dated 20 January 2011, the European Court held that returning them to their country of origin would not constitute a violation of the European Convention, as ethnic Tamils returned to Sri Lanka could not be considered to risk ill-treatment on the sole ground of their ethnic origin.7 The State party affirms that the situation in Sri Lanka at the time that the Board took its decision on the author’s asylum was not of a different nature, and that a specific assessment of the author’s situation and personal risk was required. 4.4 The State party further notes that the Refugee Appeals Board made the requisite specific and individual assessment of the author’s situation against background material concerning the situation of ethnic Tamils in Sri Lanka. As a result, the Board concluded that, prior to leaving his country of origin, the author had lived an “unremarkable and nonprofiled life”, without affiliation with or activity for LTTE. The Board observed that neither the author nor any of his close relatives had joined political or religious associations or organizations or been politically active in a way that would make the author remarkable in the eyes of the Sri Lankan authorities or other groups, including EPDP. The Board also raised the fact that, although the author and his cousin provided food and clothes free of charge to some LTTE members during the civil war, this was not sufficient for the author to be perceived as affiliated to LTTE, as this was a common practice for retailers in the region, and therefore did not give rise to a personal risk for the authors. The Board noted that, at the end of the civil war in 2009, the author had difficult experiences, including harassment at a checkpoint, as all other Tamils did when the Sri Lankan authorities cracked down on LTTE. However, the Board considered that this did not create a specific risk for the author if returned to Sri Lanka. 4.5 With regard to the author’s allegations that, having witnessed his cousin’s murder, he would be at risk of being persecuted by EPDP, the Board noted that the EPDP members who killed his cousin let the author go. The author was not visited at his home by EPDP members but was questioned, shortly after the murder, at a grocery store by some persons who he assumed to be EPDP members. However, during this incident, the author stated that he had no information as to his cousin’s murder and no action has been taken against the author following this incident. The Board also noted that, during the nine months between his cousin’s murder and his move to Point Pedro, the author was not approached by EPDP or the Sri Lankan authorities. The Board concluded that there was no link between the alleged harassment and his departure from his village of origin. Furthermore, between the questioning in 2007 at the grocery store and his departure from Sri Lanka in 2012, the author has not been contacted by anyone about the murder. While the author mentioned that some persons tried to contact him after his visit to his aunt in 2012, there is no information about the purpose of their visit. 4.6 The State party finally considers that there is no reason to question the thorough assessment of the author’s situation made by the Refugee Appeals Board, which concluded that there is no indication that he will be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment upon return to Sri Lanka. The State party finally reiterates that the current background material on Sri Lanka does not contain any basis which enables it to assume that Tamils who did not have links to LTTE, or whose family members are not high-profile members of LTTE, will be at risk of persecution as a 7 T.N. v. Denmark, application No. 20594/08; T. N. and S.N. v. Denmark, application No. 36517/08; S.S. and others v. Denmark, application No. 54703/08; P.K. v. Denmark, application No. 54705/08 and N.S. v. Denmark, application No. 58359/08. 5