CCPR/C/127/D/2484/2014 the Government, the military and the police, as well as associated military groups. He claims that he would be targeted because of his previous employment as a field worker with a non-governmental organization, the Sewalanka Foundation, which provided assistance to Tamils displaced during the civil war. The author himself is a Tamil male from the north of Sri Lanka and would be identified as a failed refugee claimant. The author claims that he was threated several times by governmental soldiers in the period 2011–2013. 4.2 The State party’s authorities have determined that if the author is deported to Sri Lanka, he would face no risk of persecution, no risk of torture, no risk to life, nor a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. The State party authorities found that some of the author’s statements were not credible and that he was able to avoid threats by changing work assignments and location. On the basis of objective country reports, the State party authorities have concluded that the author’s profile would not place him at risk, even if he was identified as a former field worker for an NGO and as a failed refugee claimant. 4.3 The State party notes the author’s claims that in 2001 he started working for an NGO assisting Tamils who had been displaced. In August 2011, he was threatened by governmental soldiers after he had refused to comply with their demand to give them assistance by transporting them in his NGO vehicle. After explaining this to his supervisor, he was transferred to another location. In March 2013, after the author began collecting information about sexual assaults against women in police detention, he received death threats from the police asking him to stop. In August 2013, he left Sri Lanka with the help of an agent. 4.4 The author’s claim for protection was heard by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada on 8 July 2014. At the hearing, the author was represented by legal counsel and had the right to adduce evidence and make submissions. The author gave an oral testimony and provided identity documents and reports on conditions in Sri Lanka. The Division is an independent, quasi-judicial specialized tribunal that considers applications for protection based on fears of persecution, torture or certain similarly serious violations of their human rights if they were to be removed to their country of origin. The Division determines whether a person is a refugee, or whether he or she is in need of protection for the purposes of section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. It conducts oral hearings in an informal and nonadversarial manner. 4.5 In its decision dated 8 August 2014, the Refugee Protection Division found that the author had failed to adequately explain his choice to include in his written testimony the allegation raised at the hearing that a colleague had also been threatened in March 2013. That allegation had not been repeated before the Committee. The author had also failed to adequately explain that he had omitted the allegation that he believed two police officers had followed him everywhere he went before his departure from Sri Lanka and this allegation had also not been raised before the Committee. The Division highlighted the author’s testimony that he had left the United States, despite the expectation that he would have been granted refugee status if he had remained there. After receiving threats in 2011, the author was able to move to another work location and did not receive any further threats until March 2013. The March 2013 threats stopped after the author completed his work on collecting information about sexual assaults in detention. After June 2013, the author was moved to an office job in Vavuniya and the threats stopped. The author was never threatened at his home in Sri Lanka. 4.6 The Refugee Protection Division further rejected the author’s claim that he was at continuing risk because two people had visited his former residence in Sri Lanka in April 2014 and asked his wife about his whereabouts. The Division found that the author had not adduced enough evidence to show that these people were police officers or whether they posed any threat. Furthermore, it found that the author’s past work with the Sewalanka Foundation was not of a kind that would expose him to the risks described in the documents concerning conditions in Sri Lanka. The documents concerning the killing of aid workers during the armed conflict in 2006 and 2007 do not show that aid workers are still at risk. More recent reports, for example, do not describe such workers being targeted. Instead, the reports describe past allegations of threats against particular types of NGO workers, especially those who were actively critical of the Government. The author also seems to accept that the Sewalanka Foundation is not critical of the Government, arguing instead that 3