CCPR/C/121/D/2487/2014 shooting and that he had provided testimony in the lawsuits against the Sri Lankan authorities. 6.7 The State party submits that the author’s mischaracterization of the officer’s findings is in aid of his continued attempts to have the Committee act as a fourth tribunal to secure an oral hearing of his pre-removal risk assessment application. The issue of whether the author is entitled to an oral pre-removal risk assessment hearing has been thoroughly considered by domestic authorities, who rejected his position. 24 The State party considers that the author’s claim that he cannot demonstrate the truth of his allegations other than through direct questioning is not well founded. It is not accurate to conclude that allegations of detention and torture (or allegations of a risk of detention and torture) can only be proven through direct questioning at an oral hearing. 6.8 The State party argues that the difficulty the author is experiencing in bringing forward sufficient, probative and credible evidence to substantiate his allegations could be due to the fact that the evidence that he has brought to the Committee’s attention, or that could still be brought to the Committee’s attention, does not support his allegations. For instance, had the author been involved with the 30 May 2011 incident in the manner he claims, one would expect that his name would have been noted in at least some of the news articles and that he would be able to obtain a transcript of his testimony or, at the very least, that he would be able to obtain verification by the trade union lawyers of his cooperation. The State party also submits that, had the author been tortured in the manner he claims, he would have been able to produce medical records to verify his injuries and the type of medical treatment he received. Instead, he provided the Committee with an undated, handwritten message on plain paper, which he claims is a medical note. 6.9 As to the author’s reference to Choudhary v. Canada, the State party considers that it does not apply to the present case. Would the Committee consider to the contrary, the State party expresses its disagreement with the majority view and considers that it goes against the Committee’s established jurisprudence, and should therefore not be followed. 6.10 Concerning the author’s argument questioning the effectiveness of the new Sri Lankan legislation designed to protect and assist witnesses and victims of crime, the State party requests the Committee to consider the issue of the new legislation in the context of the State party larger point, which is that the political situation in Sri Lanka appears to have been improving since the January 2015 elections. The adoption of witness protection legislation is an example of the potential improvement. Author’s comments on the State party’s additional observations 7.1 In his comments of 19 September and 24 October 2016, the author maintains that a hearing should have been held in the framework of his pre-removal risk assessment application as the documentary evidence he submitted raised issues as to his credibility, which was central to the officer’s decisions, and that a positive decision would have been adopted if the evidence referred to had been given sufficient probative value. 25 7.2 The author agrees with the State party that in certain situations, allegations of torture and persecution can be proven through documentary evidence alone. However, he explains that he has been unable to obtain such documentation, and should therefore have been given the opportunity to present his claim in person and testify to what he witnessed and suffered since his cousin’s death. 7.3 The author provides a letter from N, a member of the Free Trade Zone and General Services Employees Union, stating that the author was instrumental in the legal action the Union filed against the police: “We could not find many eyewitness(es) for our motion because of the threats that come through police and unknown forces. However, [the author] came forward to help us clarify the death of our union worker. I would like to mention that without his support, we [would have been] unable to make our legal document.” N also states that the Government has not yet issued the report which contains evidence regarding 24 25 10 Section 167 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. Ibid. See para. 6.7.