CAT/C/59/D/652/2015 influence on the complainant, or anyone else. Asked if he would like to respond, the complainant said that the members of Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pullikal were still operating as an armed group. During the hearing, he added that he had again been detained by the police in 1999 (see paragraph 2.3). When asked why he did not mention this detention before, he said that he did not think it was necessary. The Tribunal asked the complainant whether he had been detained on any other occasion, to which he replied in the negative. When asked about the connection between the alleged second detention and the forced confession, the complainant argued that the police had used the old confession and had searched for him on that account, and that they had referred to it during his arrest. However, after the Tribunal commented that this contradicted his previous statements, the complainant said that the confession was mentioned to him only during the second arrest, and that the police regarded him with suspicion. The complainant also stated that he had been issued a passport in Sri Lanka twice, in 1995 and 2006; that his wife was still living at the same address in Eravur; that he had not had any problems working as a driver between 1990 and 2012; and that he used to go through checkpoints while living in Sri Lanka. 2.13 On 19 February 2013, the Refugee Review Tribunal dismissed the complainant’s appeal. The Tribunal stated that it had doubts about the documentary evidence submitted by the complainant concerning his alleged detention in 1993/94, since the documentation allegedly supplied by the court upon the complainant’s release was in English rather than Sinhalese or Tamil, and was sympathetic towards him. However, even if the complainant were given the benefit of the doubt and this evidence accepted, any detention during those years had no ongoing negative consequences for him. On the other hand, the Tribunal found that his claim that he had been detained again in 1999 was not credible, as it was raised by the complainant only during the Tribunal hearing, at a late stage in the proceedings, and it contradicted his previous statements. Likewise, his accounts about the incidents with R.M. and his brother were not credible. The Tribunal further noted that after the alleged detentions, he was able to get a genuine passport to travel abroad and return to Sri Lanka without having any problem with the authorities, and that his alleged forced confession in 1993 of membership of LTTE was not used against him after his release. Furthermore, he had not adduced any subsequent problem with the Sri Lankan authorities owing to his ethnicity or alleged suspected links with LTTE. His wife was still living in Sri Lanka in the same house, and she had not been subject to threats or harassment. In coming to its conclusion, the Tribunal also considered relevant country information with regard to the complainant’s Tamil ethnicity and the current situation relating to LTTE and Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pullikal in Sri Lanka. 3 It pointed out, inter alia, that pro-government paramilitary groups (in particular the Eelam People’s Democratic Party and Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pullikal) continued to operate in Sri Lanka; that they had established political parties and that they increasingly took on the characteristics of criminal gangs as they sought to solidify their territory and revenue sources. The complainant filed an application for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision before the Federal Circuit Court. 2.14 On 7 February 2014, the Federal Circuit Court confirmed the Tribunal’s decision and dismissed the complainant’s appeal. His appeal to the Federal Court was dismissed on 28 May 2014. 2.15 On an unspecified date, the complainant lodged an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court, which was rejected on 16 October 2014. Finally, on 9 November 2014, the complainant filed an application for a waiver under section 48B of the Migration Act to allow him to file a new protection visa application and a humanitarian and compassionate request to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, citing exceptional circumstances. 3 4 The Refugee Review Tribunal recalls the country information cited by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.