CAT/C/30/D/197/2002 page 6 had left Sri Lanka. The PLOTE was disbanded in 2000, when its leader was assassinated in Vavuniya. He also submits that as he does not hold a National Identity Card, he will be placed in an extremely risky situation as demonstrated by a report of April 2002 from the United Kingdom Home Office Immigration and Nationality Directorate. 5.3 On the current human rights situation in Sri Lanka, the petitioner denies that the situation has improved significantly and invokes reports to this effect of both 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 the 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 the LTTE 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, particularly Tamils suspected of supporting the LTTE. For these reasons, the petitioner expresses the view that there is no credible evidence that the human rights situation has permanently and significantly changed in order to argue justifiably that gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights no longer occur in Sri Lanka. 5.4 With respect to the medical reports, the petitioner acknowledges that some healing has occurred but that this is immaterial in assessing whether he has been a victim of torture. To him, 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. 5.5 The petitioner 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. 5.6 The petitioner argues that the criteria applied by the Committee in the Elmi v. Australia3 case on the broadened notion of “public official or other person acting in an official capacity” applies also to the role of the LTTE in the areas under its control in Sri Lanka. He refers to the exercise, by the LTTE, of quasi-governmental powers in the north and east of the country where it has been in control, the fact that it has been accepted as a negotiating party to the peace negotiations and that it has recently opened a political office in Jaffna, with the support of the Sri Lankan Government. Thus, the petitioner argues, the fear of torture he fears from the LTTE is material in assessing the risk of a breach of article 3. 5.7 The petitioner reiterates that his past experiences of torture caused him severe mental suffering and physical injuries. He argues that due to the unsettled situation in Sri Lanka it is justified to state that he would, in addition to a substantial risk of torture, feel extremely anxious about life in Sri Lanka. He points out that according to his psychiatrist he is in need of