CCPR/C/115/D/2258/2013 determine whether such a risk exists, unless it can be established that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice.13 7.4 The Committee notes the authors’ claims under article 7 that, if returned to Sri Lanka, they would face a risk of persecution as young Tamils from Jaffna whose father was a former LTTE member, and as failed asylum seekers who would have been returned with temporary travel documents; that the authorities of the State party did not give sufficient weight to the events they had experienced prior to their departure from their country of origin; and that background material alleges that all Tamils are at serious risk in Sri Lanka. The Committee also notes the authors’ claims that the authorities failed to take into sufficient consideration their lack of family ties in Sri Lanka, their limited cognitive skills and their need for special support. 7.5 The Committee further notes the State party’s arguments that Tamils would not be at risk solely because of their ethnicity; that, according to background material on the human rights situation in Sri Lanka available at the time that the Refugee Appeals Board denied the authors’ request for asylum, persons suspected of being sympathetic to LTTE, but not high profile, were generally not at any risk of persecution; and that further reports published before February 2013 did not support the conclusion that Tamils who had not themselves been affiliated with LTTE and whose family members were not high-profile members of LTTE would be at any risk of persecution. Against that background, the State party maintained that the authors would not be at risk of treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant if returned to Sri Lanka. Further, its immigration authorities, including the Refugees Appeals Board and the Ministry of Justice, had also taken into account the situation of the authors as unaccompanied minors and concluded that they were sufficiently mature to undergo asylum proceedings; that their low cognitive level and psychological conditions were not of such severity as to require them to stay in the State party; and that, if returned, they would not be placed in an emergency situation. 7.6 The Committee observes that the Danish Immigration Service examined ex officio whether special residence permits should be given to the authors as unaccompanied minors under section 9c (3) (ii) of the Aliens Act; that the Ministry of Justice confirmed the Immigration Service decision of 27 February 2013, when the authors were 20 years old, not to grant them special residence permits; that the authors have not provided information regarding the nature and severity of their alleged psychological difficulties; and that the authors have not shown that they have necessary family or medical support in the State party that they could not receive in their country of origin. 7.7 On the other hand, the Committee also observes that the Refugee Appeals Board found as fact the following accounts given by the authors: they are ethnic Tamils from the Vanni area; their father was taken away by LTTE in 2009; the family fled to Mullivaikal; they lost contact with their mother and sister; and they were taken by the military to a camp in Vavuniya, where they were picked up by a maternal uncle after two months. Although the authorities did not refute the claim that the father of the authors had been an active member of LTTE, they denied the authors’ request for asylum mainly because their father was not a high-profile member of LTTE and his affiliation with it had ended years earlier. The Refugee Appeals Board referred to these findings when rejecting the authors’ request for reopening the asylum proceedings on 29 August 2013. However, the Committee observes that current reports in the public domain concerning the human rights situation in Sri Lanka,14 as well as those to which the parties refer, 15 indicate that, despite the change in 13 14 10 See, inter alia, communications No. 2393/2014, K v. Denmark, Views adopted on 16 July 2015, para. 7.4; and No. 1957/2010, Lin v. Australia, Views adopted on 21 March 2013, para. 9.3. See, for instance, United States of America Department of State, country reports on human rights practices for Sri Lanka (Washington, D.C., 25 June 2015); Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, “Sri Lanka: treatment of suspected members or supporters of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil