CCPR/C/127/D/2276/2013 this risk profile upon return to Sri Lanka. It argues that State authorities such as the Criminal Investigation Department do not appear to have ever seriously considered that the author has ties to LTTE. It notes that the author’s account includes some incidents of detention by the Criminal Investigation Department in late 2009 and early 2010, but that State authorities determined that most of the author’s account was not credible. Even the author’s own account states that he continued to live in Sri Lanka for over a year after the last alleged incident involving the Criminal Investigation Department, without experiencing any harassment from State actors. The author left Sri Lanka legally in 2011, using his own recently issued passport, and there was no reason to believe that he would now be of interest to the authorities of Sri Lanka. The State party notes the author’s claims that he was beaten by the Criminal Investigation Department while allegedly detained in 2009 and 2010, but notes that in his communication the author does not provide any further details on the nature of the alleged ill-treatment. It notes that the Refugee Protection Division determined, based on discrepancies in the author’s account of events, that all incidents alleged by him to have occurred after he left the internally displaced persons camp in January 2010 were lacking in credibility. It notes that the author may have been briefly detained by the Criminal Investigation Department while in such a camp, but argues that the Department did not appear to have an individualized interest in him and that, if any of these alleged arbitrary detentions actually happened, then on the facts as alleged by the author the most plausible explanation was that they were part of broad sweeps carried out in the north by the Department to target Tamil individuals, and young male Tamils in particular, in the tumultuous period at the end of the civil war in 2009 and early in 2010. 4.8 The State party submits that the author’s personal profile of a young Tamil male with scars on his body who is returning to the country after unsuccessfully claiming asylum abroad would not lead the authorities of Sri Lanka to form suspicions that he has links to LTTE. The State party notes that the author’s scars are accidental injuries to his upper chest and arm incurred during a shelling attack and that the scars have no connections to the alleged incidents of detention and mistreatment by State authorities. It notes that country reports do not support the author’s contention that these characteristics would draw the scrutiny of the authorities of Sri Lanka upon his return. These reports suggest that someone must be on a “stop” or “watch” list to attract special scrutiny from the State authorities. Since the author has not provided any reason to believe that he would be on such a list, the State party submits that he would be able to return to Sri Lanka without any special scrutiny. 4.9 With respect to the alleged incident by the local Eelam People’s Democratic Party paramilitary forces in Nelliady, the State party notes that the domestic authorities concluded that the author’s account in this regard was not credible. It further argues that there is no indication that the Criminal Investigation Department or other State authorities were involved in the alleged incident. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 23 April 2014, the author submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. He maintains that the communication is admissible. He notes that, at the time of his submission of the communication before the Committee, he was not eligible to submit a pre-removal risk assessment application or an application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. He had consequently exhausted all available domestic remedies. He further notes that he applied for a pre-removal risk assessment on 4 March 2014. As concerns the merits of the communication, the author refers to his initial complaint of 20 July 2013. concluded that the current categories of persons in real risk of persecution or serious harm on return to Sri Lanka, whether in detention or otherwise, were individuals who were, or were perceived to be, a threat to the integrity of Sri Lanka as a single State because they had, or were perceived to have, a significant role in relation to post-conflict Tamil separatism within the diaspora and/or a renewal of hostilities in Sri Lanka. The State party also refers to the Human Rights Watch World Report 2013, in which it is stated that Tamils with alleged links to LTTE were increasingly at risk of arbitrary arrests and torture. 6