CAT/C/61/D/720/2015 would put him at risk of harm, the State party submits that he has not provided evidence to substantiate that claim. Immigration and Border Protection consulted recent country information, which suggested that Tamils suspected of having links to LTTE may be detained and tortured upon return, 21 however, the complainant has been found not to have any connections to LTTE. 22 The State party contends that, if he is associated with any Tamils who had departed Sri Lanka illegally and who were returned as failed asylum seekers, there would likely be no risk to him as a result of such association. 4.21 With regard to the new pieces of evidence provided by the complainant in his submission to the Committee, notably a medical certificate attesting that he suffered a broken hand during his detention by the Sri Lanka Army, the Refugee Review Tribunal accepted the complainant’s claim his hand was injured and that it may have occurred during his detention by the Army. It also accepted his claim that he was cleared to travel to Colombo for medical reasons. The Tribunal further accepted that the harm referred to in this evidence occurred in the past, however, it did not find that the complainant would be at risk of harm or persecution at the present time, as he is not of interest to the authorities. Therefore, the State party maintains that the medical certificate does not alter the basis for the Tribunal’s finding. 4.22 As regards a copy of an affidavit signed by the complainant’s mother, in which she claims that the complainant was employed by LTTE from 2002 to 2006; detained upon his return to Sri Lanka from Qatar; she sold her property to pay for his journey to Australia; and he is of interest to the authorities and will face death if returned to Sri Lanka, the State party notes that the complainant has never claimed involvement with LTTE and, in fact, has denied any involvement. In fact, the Tribunal found that he is not suspected of LTTE involvement nor of interest to the authorities. Therefore, the Immigration and Border Protection gave little weight to that piece of evidence. Lastly, the complainant provided a copy of a deed of sale for his mother’s property to demonstrate that his mother had financed his travel, as she claimed. However, the State party notes that the issue of the sale of land is not material to the complainant’s claims of risk of harm upon return to Sri Lanka. The State party submits that Immigration and Border Protection assessed those new pieces of evidence and did not accept that they, on their own or in conjunction with the previous findings, provided any new information to indicate that the State party’s non-refoulement obligations under article 3 of the Convention would be engaged if the complainant was returned to Sri Lanka. 4.23 Finally, the State party challenges the complainant’s claim that internal relocation is not an option within Sri Lanka for a person at risk from the authorities since the Government controls the whole of Sri Lanka and persons who departed illegally and failed asylum seekers are immediately detected and taken into custody upon arrival at Colombo Airport. In that regard, the State party asserts that the complainant is not of adverse interest to the authorities and he would not be remanded in custody upon return because he departed Sri Lanka legally. It claims the complainant provided outdated country information on the human rights violations in the region where he is from in Sri Lanka, and during all the assessments, the domestic decision makers took into account current and relevant 21 22 8 See Human Rights Watch, World Report 2016: Sri Lanka. Available at www.hrw.org/sites/ default/files/world_report_download/wr2016_web.pdf, pages 530-532. See Amnesty International, Amnesty International Report 2015/16: Sri Lanka. Available at www.amnesty.org/en/documents/pol10/2552/2016/en/. The State party states that advice from the British High Commission reveals that Tamils can be, but would not usually be, charged with illegally departing Sri Lanka, and there is no mention of any mistreatment occurring to illegally departed persons on this basis (see United Kingdom, Home Office, Sri Lanka — Bulletin: Treatment of Returns, December 2012, pp. 105-106). Furthermore, the Government of Sri Lanka has taken various steps towards reconciliation with Tamils and is encouraging their return to the country (see “Sri Lanka delists several alleged pro-LTTE organizations and individuals from terror list”, Colombo Page, 21 November 2015. Available from www.colombopage.com/archive_15B/Nov21_1448122543CH.php; also “Canada, Australia leaders commend President Sirisena on remarkable changes brought to governance in Sri Lanka”, Colombo Page, 29 November 2015. Available from www.colombopage.com/archive_15B/Nov29_ 1448776552CH.php.).