CAT/C/57/D/605/2014 mutilated and there is no reason to believe that the body was taken for a post-mortem examination and then mutilated the way that the author describes. Moreover, the Department assessed that the post-mortem report appeared to be fraudulent. Therefore, the Department has given no weight to the allegations that the author will be tortured on return to Sri Lanka. 7.6 The Department of Immigration and Border Protection has also assessed the statutory declaration presented as evidence to the effect that the author has a relationship with a person, Mr. K., who was a Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam member and was killed by the police after his release from detention. The complainant’s claim that he faces a real risk of torture on returning to Sri Lanka because of his relationship with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam member was not considered credible. Moreover, the Department has not accepted the complainant’s explanations that he did not provide his statutory declaration earlier because he feared a prolonged period in detention in the State party because of his relationship with Mr. K. The State party notes that the complainant provided the information about the two dead uncles but not about Mr. K. When seeking a judicial review in the Federal Circuit Court, the complainant did not raise any concerns that his links with a member of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam had not been adequately considered. The Department considered that this omission raised doubts as to the credibility of the complainant’s claims that he had a close link with Mr. K. and that Mr. K. was a member of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam as stated in the statutory declaration. Regarding the claim that the complainant met Mr. K., who was an employee of the author’s uncle, and that they went together to Kilinochchi (the headquarters of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam), the Department has assessed this as implausible. It was considered improbable that the complainant would consent, or that he would have his family’s consent, to travel to such a volatile region. 17 It was also questionable that the family would have accepted the risk that the author might be recruited by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam18 or might be perceived by the authorities, on returning to the government-held area, as being a member of the group.19 Although the Department acknowledged that there was a formal ceasefire in place during 2006, there was reportedly ongoing violence in January and June 2006 in Trincomalee, Vavuniya and Kilinochchi and throughout Sri Lanka. The State party points out that according to UNHCR, the Sri Lankan authorities returned to preceasefire security arrangements and many checkpoints were reinstated on the main roads after April 2006 and in the towns in the north and the east, making it particularly difficult for Tamils to travel in government-controlled areas. In August 2006, the violence had increased again to the point that the A9 road linking Vavuniya and Kilinochchi was closed because of the heightened security risk.20 7.7 The State party also submits that while Mr. K. may have been a member of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, there is no evidence to substantiate the complainant’s claims that the Sri Lankan army authorities at checkpoints were aware of that membership during the alleged travel by the complainant and Mr. K. to Kilinochchi. It is also argued that, irrespective of the ceasefire, if the Criminal Investigation Department had knowledge 17 18 19 20 10 The complainant was a minor (aged 15) at the time. “Sri Lanka continues to lead the campaign against child recruitment”, report by the Government of Sri Lanka, 21 June 2006, available from http://reliefweb.int/report/sri-lanka/sri-lanka-continues-leadcampaign-against-child-recruitment; and “Save the Children concerned about increased violence against children in Sri Lanka”, report by Save the Children, 16 June 2006, available from http://reliefweb.int/report/sri-lanka/save-children-concerned-about-increased-violence-againstchildren-sri-lanka. Human Rights Watch, “Return to war: human rights under siege”, 5 August 2007. Available from https://www.hrw.org/report/2007/08/05/return-war/human-rights-under-siege. TamilNet, “SLA closes Vavuniya, Uyilankulam, Madhu checkpoints”, 12 August 2006. Available from http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?artid=19203&catid=13. GE.16-09596