CAT/C/20/D/94/1997 page 5 Sri Lanka. In this connection, the State party notes that the author has never given precise information with regard to his arrest or the circumstances of his detention, despite an invitation to do so by the ODR. In the State party's opinion, the author's description of these events are vague and full of gaps, raising doubts about their reality. 7.4 Furthermore, the author has never claimed to have been subjected to torture. In this context, the State party refers to the Committee's decision in communication No. 38/1995, 1 where it took into consideration the fact that the author had never claimed that he had been tortured in reaching its decision that his case showed no violation of article 3. Moreover, the State party points out that the alleged arrest and detention in the instant case date back more than seven years, and that it would therefore be difficult to admit a link between this event and the author's present fear of persecution. During the hearing before the immigration authorities, the author declared that since his release he had lived in Kilinochi for 11 months without any problem, as well as in Colombo. 7.5 With regard to the author's claim that the security forces are looking for him because his brother is a member of the LTTE, the State party considers that his statements in this regard are not credible. During the hearing, he was asked whether he had encountered problems because of his brother, to which he replied that he was taken in for questioning in 1994, which was disturbing, but did not cause any problems. In his communication to the Committee, the State party notes that the author states that the Sri Lanka army is looking for him, because of his brother, a claim contradictory to what he told the Swiss immigration authorities. With respect to the letter from the author's father, of 10 July 1997, the State party contends that it does not constitute sufficient evidence, since it gives no support to the author's claim of arrest and detention, and coming from a close relative, has little evidentiary value. In the State party's opinion, if the army were in reality looking for the author, he could not have left Kilinochi to go to Vavuniya, since the area is closely controlled by the army; nor could the author have easily obtained an army pass to go to Colombo. The State party concludes that the author has not substantiated his claim that the army is looking for him and that he consequently risks to be subjected to torture. 7.6 The State party notes that the author now claims that he risks persecution by the army, whereas before the immigration authorities he claimed that “different movements” had stopped and interrogated him. In this context, the State party refers to the hearing before the immigration authorities, where the author replied to the question what he would risk upon return to his country, that he risked being taken by the movement for which he would have to work. The State party concludes that the author's asylum request was mainly based on the threat by the LTTE, whereas before the Committee he claims risk of persecution by the army. The State party recognizes the possibility that a person is threatened by the State and an opposition movement at the same time, but does not believe that this is so in the author's case. Rather, the State party considers it likely that the author has changed his story in view of the text of article 3 of the Convention, that the risk of torture must be originating in State authority. Again referring to the minutes of the hearing before the immigration authorities, the State party notes that the author indicated as reasons for his departure the problems with the movement and bombardments.