CAT/C/60/D/623/2014 viewed individually and combined, have not demonstrated that he has ever been of interest to the Sri Lankan authorities, in the past or at present. 4.2 Citing the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in N.A. v. United Kingdom2 and the decision of the Upper Tribunal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in G.J. and others,3 and on the basis of his claims, the State party assesses that there is no real risk that the complainant would be perceived to have a significant role in diaspora activities designed to destabilize the unitary Sri Lankan State and revive the internal armed conflict. 4.3 The State party considers that the complainant has not established satisfactorily that the Sri Lankan authorities were aware of his participation in LTTE. The State party does not accept as evidence the letter from the commanding officer summoning the complainant to report to the army camp; the State party’s Royal Military and Border Police was unable to establish whether the letter in question was genuine. The State party also points out that the letter was handwritten and sent to the complainant more than three years after his departure from Sri Lanka, and notes that it is possible in Sri Lanka to purchase forged documents, stamps, stickers and forms. 4 Even if the Government has learned or would learn that the complainant was a member of LTTE, this is not a sufficient reason to assume that he will be viewed as a Tamil activist and a present risk to the State, given his insignificant role in LTTE, his escape and his forced stay with LTTE as a minor. 4.4 The State party notes that only in his last asylum application in 2014 did the complainant provide information about the death in 2006 of his cousin, who was an LTTE member. The State party found it implausible that the complainant did not know about the death of his cousin, having been in communication with his uncle. The complainant has not provided information on the position of his cousin within LTTE, or on whether he or members of his family have ever had problems in connection with his cousin’s activities during or after the conflict. Therefore, the State party cannot conclude that the complainant would be at risk upon return to Sri Lanka for this reason. 4.5 The State party observes that the complainant has not shown that the Sri Lankan authorities know about the Facebook pictures taken during the LTTE sports activities and commemoration of Heroes’ Day. It is doubtful that the Sri Lankan authorities could link untagged pictures of the complainant participating in a football tournament on “Martyrs’ Day” with the complainant. However, even if they could establish his identity on that basis, the activities in question are too marginal for him to be considered to be an activist. 4.6 The State party submits that the complainant did not mention his scars until his third asylum application and did not explain why he had not mentioned them earlier, nor did he state that the scars were a result of torture. As there is no indication that the complainant has attracted the adverse attention of the Sri Lankan authorities, there is also no reason to conclude that he will attract such attention merely because of his scars. 4.7 Regarding the complainant’s claim that without an identity card and with an emergency passport he would be detained in the airport and the authorities will find out that he applied for asylum, the State party submits that the Sri Lankan authorities are aware that many people emigrate for economic reasons. The State party also submits that every year the number of Tamil asylum seekers forcibly returned to Sri Lanka varies from a few to more than a thousand.5 While it is acknowledged that some returnees have become victims of treatment contrary to the Convention, this does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that every returnee faces such a risk. 2 3 4 5 Application No. 25904/07, judgment of 17 July 2008. United Kingdom, Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), G.J. and others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, decision adopted on 5 July 2013. See www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-publicaties/ambtsberichten/2014/10/02/sri-lanka-2014-102.html. Reference is made to The Migration Observatory, “Deportations, removals and voluntary departures from the United Kingdom”, 23 June 2014. 3