CCPR/C/114/D/2280/2013 applications for leave and for judicial review to the Federal Court against the decisions that dismissed his humanitarian and compassionate grounds and PRRA applications. At the time the communication was submitted to the Committee, his applications for leave to appeal and judicial review were pending. 2.16 On 26 July 2013, the author also filed a motion for a judicial stay of removal before the Federal Court, in connection with PRRA. On 30 July 2013, the Federal Court refused the author’s motion for a judicial stay of removal. The complaint 3.1 The author contends that his deportation to Sri Lanka by the State party would constitute a violation of articles 6 (1), 7 and 9 (1) of the Covenant. He claims that he faces a considerable risk of being arbitrarily detained, tortured and even killed. 3.2 The author holds that the State party’s authorities arbitrarily ignored documentary evidence that supported his claims of persecution if returned to Sri Lanka or selectively considered passages of the documentary evidence against his allegations. Hence the State party has failed to assess adequately the risk to which he would be subjected if returned. 3.3 IRB relied in its decision on the 2010 UNHCR Guidelines and arbitrarily failed to give due consideration to more recent documentary evidence that indicated that those Guidelines were outdated. It was unreasonable to find that the author would not be at risk if deported in spite of the fact the he had been arrested, detained and ill-treated by the Army. The author claims that his subsequent releases by the Army did not diminish the fact that he was perceived as a person with links to LTTE. Furthermore, the risk of persecution had become even prominent after living in Canada and applying for asylum. The author claims that even if the IRB assessment were correct at the time of its decision in December 2011, the evidence available at the time his communication was submitted to the Committee showed that there had been a significant change of circumstances since then. 3.4 Although the PRRA officer was obliged to examine the most recent sources of information in conducting the risk assessment, his decision omitted the most recent UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of AsylumSeekers from Sri Lanka, dated 21 December 2012. Those Guidelines indicate, based on information provided by prominent non-governmental organizations (NGOs),4 that failed asylum seekers still faced persecution by the authorities upon arrival in Sri Lanka. In particular, the PRRA assessment selectively considered part of the documentary evidence and failed to recognize that the author would be perceived as an individual with ties to LTTE. In the light of the conflicting information contained in the documentary evidence regarding the risk of failed asylum seekers of Tamil ethnicity, the PRRA officer should explain why he found that some elements of the documentary evidence, against his claims, were given preference. 3.5 The author points out that the Committee against Torture concluded that allegations of the widespread use of torture in police custody were continued and consistent. 5 He contends that several persons of Tamil ethnicity that returned to Sri Lanka, including failed 4 5 6 The author refers to Human Rights Watch, “UK: Halt Deportations of Tamils to Sri Lanka. Credible Allegations of Arrest and Torture upon Return”, 24 February 2012; Human Rights Watch, “UK: Suspend Deportation of Tamils to Sri Lanka. Further Reports of Torture of Returnees Highlight Extent Problem”, 29 May 2012; Amnesty International, “Sri Lanka: Briefing to Committee against Torture”, October 2011; and the Asian Human Rights Commission report on police torture cases 1998-2011, Sri Lanka, case 299, p. 379. See the concluding observations of the Committee against Torture (CAT/C/LKA/CO/3-4), para. 6.