CAT/C/60/D/708/2015 2007, tortured and released after 18 months; and documents from the Red Cross in relation to family tracing. The Department noted that the complainant’s claim of having been detained on suspicion of being an LTTE member had not been accepted by the reviewer undertaking the independent merits review. It also noted that following the considerable change to the security situation in Sri Lanka after the end of hostilities in 2009, the level of protection offered in the country “is sufficient to overcome any concerns of serious harm based on suspected involvement with the LTTE or racial profiling”. 29 The Department further noted the author’s statement that he had no connections with the LTTE and was therefore satisfied that the author did not have a profile that would attract adverse attention. 4.21 The State party reports that on 20 September 2012, it was determined 30 that the author did not have any unique or compelling circumstances and accordingly, did not meet the guidelines for referral to the Minister for consideration under section 195A of the Migration Act.31 4.22 The State party submits that on 30 September 2014, a subsequent international treaties obligation assessment was initiated to assess the complainant’s claims under the complementary protection obligations contained in section 36 (2) (aa) of the Migration Act. The complainant reiterated his original claims, including that he would be persecuted because he was a Tamil and would be suspected of being a member of LTTE. On 14 January 2015, during an interview, the complainant admitted that he had lied when he claimed that he was detained in Kathirkaran camp from 2008 to 201032 and about being tortured in the camp by the Sri Lankan army and the Criminal Investigation Department on suspicion that he was affiliated with LTTE. He also admitted that he had lived in India from 2007 to 2010. 4.23 The State party reports that the complainant also made a number of new claims. For instance, he claimed that, although he was not an LTTE member, he lived in an area where he and all other children were given basic training by LTTE for three months in 2000 and that he had supported LTTE from 2000 to 2004. He also claimed that he had been tortured and sexually abused in Joseph Camp in 2004 and that he had avoided being detained or arrested at Colombo international airport because he had paid an agent with whom he was travelling to bribe airport officials. 4.24 The State party explains that in order to ensure procedural fairness, the Department provided several opportunities for the complainant to explain these inconsistencies, including inviting him to make further submissions and to clarify these doubts during the interviews throughout the process. 33 The Department considered that the author displayed a significant lack of credibility. In respect of the new claims, the decision maker accepted that the complainant was living in an area controlled by LTTE, was provided with basic training, along with the rest of the villagers, and was required to provide basic aid to LTTE. Nonetheless, it did not accept that the complainant had worked for the Danish demining group or that he had been forced by torture or otherwise to support LTTE. The Department did not consider it logical that the complainant would have forgotten about the experience he claimed to have had in Joseph Camp, nor that he would have been released by the authorities within 15-20 days if he were considered an LTTE member. It found that the complainant was not accompanied by an agent, nor had he bribed the authorities at the airport every time he left Sri Lanka. It also emphasized that when he travelled to Australia, he had departed Sri Lanka legally and had not faced any difficulties. 34 4.25 The State party explains that in the 2015 international treaties obligation assessment decision, the Department considered that the author had fabricated new claims specifically for the purpose of engaging the State party’s international treaty obligations. The 29 30 31 32 33 34 See post-review protection claims assessment (2012), p. 6. The State party does not specify which authority took the decision. Under section 195 (A), the Minister has the power to intervene to grant a visa to a person in immigration detention, if he or she thinks it is in the public interest to do so. See international treaties obligation assessment (2015), p.8. Ibid., pp. 9-10. Ibid., pp. 17-18. 7