4.3The State party submits that the arrests which, according to the complainant, took place in 1998 give no reason to believe that the Sri Lankan authorities would be particularly interested in the complainant’s activities, as, according to the complainant himself, they were due to the fact that he was new in the area and a suspected LTTE militant. The State party notes that, upon release after his second arrest, he continued to stay two more weeks in Hatton, where he had been arrested, and thereafter in other Governmentcontrolled areas, until he left the country. The State party concludes that there is no indication that the complainant is personally targeted by the Sri Lankan authorities. 4.4The State party emphasizes that since the end of the 1980s the complainant has not been politically active, nor has he participated in the activities of LTTE. Thus, there are no substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture in his country of origin. 4.5 Although the State party concedes that the medical reports largely support the complainant’s statements concerning his injuries, it argues that they indicate that some healing has already occurred, and that the complainant no longer requires anti-depression medication. It acknowledges that he still needs regular psychiatric treatment and physiotherapy, but submits that the relevance of the medical reports must be assessed in conjunction with the other facts of the case. 4.6The State party submits that the complainant does not display symptoms that could not be treated in his country of origin, and that his state of health is no obstacle to the enforcement of the deportation decision. Considering that the events which allegedly affected the complainant’s health took place in the 1980s, his state of health does not provide substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture in his country of origin. 4.7The State party submits that, in the past few years, the human rights situation in Sri Lanka has significantly improved. It refers to a document prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in 1999 for the European Union High Level Working Group on Asylum and Migration, which stated that asylum seekers who have not been found to fulfil refugee criteria may be returned to Sri Lanka. It refers to the ceasefire reached on 23 February 2002, with which the armed forces of Sri Lanka and LTTE have since complied. Since then, residents need no longer report at military checkpoints. It also refers to a statement by a UNHCR representative of 21 May 2002, according to which 71,000 Tamil refugees returned home that year, more than half of whom returned to the Jaffna area. In the State party’s view, therefore, in light of the continuing improvement in the situation in Sri Lanka there is no foreseeable, real and personal risk that the complainant will be tortured on return. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s submission 5.1In his response, the complainant reiterates the facts as stated in his initial submission and provides new information. He submits that in August 1985, he buried arms belonging to the Eelam Liberation Organization (TELO), another organization banned by LTTE, in the garden of his family home. As LTTE in effect controls the lives of Jaffna residents, the complainant is afraid of the serious consequences both he and his family will face should LTTE receive information about these arms. He claims that LTTE considers the hiding of weapons and ammunition as a serious offence against the organization and would react harshly to such an act. In addition, as this act constitutes a crime under Sri Lankan law, he risks being prosecuted by the authorities. He claims that it was because of fear that he did not provide this information during the asylum procedure. To explain why he brought the matter only at this stage, the complainant cites the jurisprudence of the Committee stating that a victim of torture cannot be expected to give a full and coherent account of his past experiences during the asylum procedure. He also refers to the fact that UNHCR accepts that a person who, owing to his experiences, was afraid of the authorities in his country of origin may be distrustful of all authorities. 5.2In addition, the complainant submits that after escaping from Sri Lanka he received information that some of his Tamil friends had been killed, some had joined the army and some had left Sri Lanka. PLOTE was disbanded in 2000, when its leader was assassinated in Vavuniya. He also submits that as he does not have a national identity card he will be placed in an extremely risky situation, as demonstrated by an April 2002 report of the United Kingdom Home Office Immigration and Nationality Directorate. 5.3On the current human rights situation in Sri Lanka, the complainant denies that the situation has improved significantly and cites to this effect a report of Human Rights Watch (July 2002) and the United States Department of State Country Report on Human Rights Practices, 2001. According to the former report, there has been little formal attention to human rights concerns in the context of the peace process, in spite of the fact that the civil war has been driven by grave abuses of human rights committed by all sides. Most of the hundreds of detainees are Tamils arrested on suspicion of being linked with LTTE; the memorandum of understanding is not a human rights instrument and there has been evidence of continuing abuse since its acceptance. According to the latter report, there have been serious human rights problems in some areas and the ongoing war with LTTE has continued to lead to serious human rights abuses by both sides. The security forces and police continue to torture and mistreat detainees in police custody and prisons, in particular Tamils suspected of supporting LTTE. For these reasons, the complainant expresses the view that there is no credible evidence that the human rights situation has permanently and significantly changed or that gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights no longer occur in Sri Lanka. 5.4With respect to the medical reports, the complainant acknowledges that some healing has occurred but that this is immaterial in assessing whether he has been a victim of torture. In his view, the State party fails to acknowledge that he was tortured not only in the 1980s but also during his three-month detention in 1998. He argues that it is improbable that the Sri Lankan health care system could provide him with the specialized treatment he needs. On this issue, although he acknowledges that his state of health may not per se constitute substantial grounds for believing that he is in danger of being subjected to torture, it does constitute a relevant fact within the meaning of article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention in assessing the existence of such a danger. 5.5The complainant submits that “the issue at hand is whether ... [there is] ... a substantial danger of being subjected to torture in Sri Lanka, not whether he has had a fair asylum procedure in Finland”. Thus, the issue touches on the interpretation of article 3 of the Convention, not whether the Finnish asylum decision has been procedurally and materially legal.