CAT/C/60/D/623/2014 4.8 In the light of these considerations, the State party concludes that the complainant’s claims are insufficiently substantiated and that he will not be subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention upon his return to Sri Lanka. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 4 September 2015, the complainant submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. He claims that under the domestic procedure (section 4:6 of the Federal Administrative Law Act) successive applications for asylum are possible only when new facts or information appears which did not exist at the time of the first application. Therefore, it is very difficult for asylum seekers to have new evidence examined in subsequent asylum applications. 5.2 He states that at his second asylum procedure he submitted the original letter by the commanding officer and that its authenticity should have been examined by the Embassy of the Netherlands in Colombo. As for the State party’s doubts as to why he was contacted three years after leaving the country, the complainant stated in his letter to the Council of State dated 19 September 2012 that the letter of the commanding officer was issued in accordance with the policy of the Sri Lankan Government at that time to search and persecute young Tamils in particular on suspicion of LTTE involvement. He also states that he has submitted many documents and supporting material to prove that the authorities were looking for him, including a letter dated 28 November 2011 from a friend in Sri Lanka, the death certificate of his cousin and the autopsy report and his picture with other LTTE members taken in Sri Lanka, and that he was involved in LTTE activities abroad, in support of which he has submitted photographs and medals from the LTTE-supported sports events in the Netherlands. 5.3 Concerning the participation of his cousin in LTTE and his death, the complainant states that he did not know about the death because the two families lived in different areas, one controlled by the army and the other by LTTE, and had no means of communicating during the conflict. He states that the position of his cousin in LTTE is irrelevant; it is sufficient that he was an LTTE combatant, which in itself is enough to make the Sri Lankan authorities suspicious. He also states that according to the reports submitted to the State party, Tamils from the north and the east who have had any link to LTTE risk arrest, detention and torture upon return. 5.4 The complainant states that although he was not identified in the Facebook pictures, his face was distinguishable, and since the Sri Lankan authorities would receive information in advance about his arrival from the Embassy of the Netherlands, he would be identified by the photograph in his temporary passport. He states that the reports submitted by him to the State party authorities indicate that the Sri Lankan Government closely monitors all protests and other political activities abroad. His participation in the sports activities, in combination with other factors indicated by him, would be enough for the authorities to suspect him of LTTE involvement abroad. 5.5 The complainant claims it is irrelevant that he mentioned his scars only during the third asylum procedure, and that they are not a result of torture. They are, however, a risk factor, and Sri Lankan authorities will treat them as an indicator of LTTE involvement. 5.6 Concerning the lack of an identity card, the complainant states that people who leave Sri Lanka are branded “unpatriotic”. This seems to be one reason why returning asylum seekers are viewed negatively, sometimes treated like traitors and seen as a potential threat. Additional information from the complainant 6.1 On 25 November 2015, the complainant informed the Committee that the High Administrative Court had rejected his request for access to the asylum-seeker benefits (shelter, livelihood assistance and health-care insurance) available to people awaiting the outcome of proceedings in connection with their applications for asylum or a residence permit, or on the basis of a court decision. Such access is granted to people whose request for interim measures is granted by the European Court of Human Rights. In the complainant’s case, the State party’s authorities found that the Committee’s request for 4