CCPR/C/116/D/2347/2014 tortured after having been forcibly returned to Sri Lanka upon rejection of their asylum claims, or after their voluntary return to Sri Lanka.8 3.3 The author points out that according to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) individuals with real or perceived links to LTTE that go beyond prior residency within an area controlled by LTTE continue to be exposed to treatment that may give rise to a need for international refugee protection. 9 The author adds that, according to a report published by a non-governmental organization campaigning to end torture, Tamils suspected of having any kind of links to LTTE were at risk of being detained and subsequently tortured. The author holds that his identity and alleged connection to LTTE has already been exposed to the Sri Lankan authorities and that he is already perceived to be a member of LTTE and thus fears being arrested and maltreated immediately upon arrival in Sri Lanka. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 12 August 2014, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits of the communication. The State party submits that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of establishing the admissibility of his communication under article 7 of the Covenant. It considers that the author has not established that there are substantial grounds for believing that he will be in danger of being tortured if returned to Sri Lanka. The State party therefore considers that the communication is inadmissible. 4.2 The State party notes that the author requested asylum in Denmark because he allegedly risks being tortured if returned to Sri Lanka due to his alleged link to LTTE and because he allegedly fears being killed due to a conflict with his family-in-law. 4.3 The State party refers to the principles set out in the European Court of Human Rights judgment N.A. v. the United Kingdom.10 In that judgment, the Court stated, inter alia, that the deterioration of the security situation in Sri Lanka resulting in an increase in the number of human rights violations did not create a general risk to all Tamils returning to Sri Lanka. The Court further observed that both the assessment of the risk to ethnic Tamils with certain profiles and the assessment of whether individual acts of harassment would cumulatively amount to serious violations of human rights could be made only on a specific and individual basis. The State party also refers to five cases submitted to the Court by ethnic Tamils challenging the decisions of the Danish authorities to deport them to Sri Lanka. In all those decisions, dated 20 January 2011, the Court held that returning the applicants to their country of origin would not constitute a violation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights), as ethnic Tamils returned to Sri Lanka could not be considered to be at risk of ill-treatment on the sole ground of their ethnic origin.11 The State party affirms that the situation in Sri Lanka was not of a different nature at the time that the Refugee Appeals Board took its decision on the author’s asylum claim nor is of such a nature today, and that, accordingly, a specific assessment of the author’s situation and personal risk was required. The State party distinguishes, in particular, N.A. v. the United Kingdom from T.N. and S.N. 8 9 10 11 4 The author refers to the UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum Seekers from Sri Lanka, p. 8. Ibid, p. 27. Application No. 25904/07, judgment of 17 July 2008. T.N. v. Denmark, application No. 20594/08; T.N. and S.N. v. Denmark, application No. 36517/08; S.S. and others v. Denmark, application No. 54703/08; P.K. v. Denmark, application No. 54705/08 and N.S. v. Denmark, application No. 58359/08.