CAT/C/58/D/608/2014 the real risk that the practice of torture will still continue”.11 The Committee takes note of credible reports published by non-governmental organizations concerning the treatment given by the Sri Lankan authorities to individuals returned to Sri Lanka.12 The Committee considers that all the above-mentioned reports shows that Sri Lankans of Tamil ethnicity with a prior personal or familial connection to LTTE facing forcible return to Sri Lanka may face a risk of torture. 13 7.8 However, in the present case, the Committee notes that the main focus of the complainant’s allegations is the evaluation of his accounts by the authorities. He argues that the authorities’ strict assessment of his credibility resulted in the arbitrary refusal of his application for a protection visa. The complainant submits that he did not mention his alleged job with LTTE in 2004 because he was afraid that it would undermine his chances of being granted a protection visa; that the information would be shared with the Sri Lankan authorities; and that he would be considered a security risk by the State party and kept in detention. The Committee, however, observes that in the decision of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and at the first hearing with Refugee Review Tribunal, the complainant was informed on several occasions that reports on the human rights situation in Sri Lanka indicated that Tamils suspected of having links to LTTE might be in need of international protection; that although he was asked whether he had any other reason to fear persecution in Sri Lanka other than the incident with TMVP, he did not raise any other claim; and that he added his allegations of links with LTTE only at a very late stage in the proceedings, without providing any relevant evidence of the links. Furthermore, he has not argued that he experienced any incidents with or harassment by the authorities after his return to Sri Lanka between 16 April 2010 and 25 March 2012, nor has he claimed that his relatives were subjected to persecution due to his alleged connection with LTTE. 7.9 With regard to the allegations concerning TMVP, the Committee observes that the reports referred to by the parties indicate that between 2010 and 2012, groups such as TMVP continued to operate in Sri Lanka with close links to security forces; that they were involved in illegal activities; and that they increasingly took on the characteristics of criminal gangs, resorting to extortion, particularly of business people, to gather money. According to the reports, those targeted by the Karuna faction included anyone who opposed the Sri Lanka Freedom Party, regardless of whether they were Tamil or Sinhalese, and Muslims in the east, particularly in Batticaloa.14 Against that background, the State party’s authorities concluded that the complainant would not be perceived as an opponent to TMVP solely because he refused to lend them his truck in March 2012. Moreover, he was not subject to extortion by TMVP between his return to Sri Lanka in 2010 and his departure to Australia, and his relatives have not been contacted or harassed by TMVP due to his refusal to lend his truck. The complainant disagrees with the assessment of the State party’s authorities. However, the Committee observes that he has failed to explain why the decision to deny him a protection visa was arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice, for instance due to the authorities’ failure to take into account a relevant risk factor. 11 12 13 14 10 See the preliminary observations and recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, Mr. Juan E. Mendez, on the official joint visit to Sri Lanka – 29 April-7 May 2016. See Freedom from Torture, “Tainted Peace: Torture in Sri Lanka since May 2009”, August 2015, and Yasmin Sooka, Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales and International Truth and Justice Project, Sri Lanka, “An unfinished war: torture and sexual violence in Sri Lanka 2009-2014”, March 2014. See communication No. 628/2014, J.N. v. Denmark, decision of 13 May 2016, para. 7.9. See UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum Seekers from Sri Lanka (21 December 2012), p. 19.