CAT/C/51/D/387/2009 member of the Sri Lankan Government; his detention and beating with wire by SLFP and JVP members; several verbal death threats; his being threatened at gunpoint by a member of the Sri Lankan Government; and, in 2009, another search for him at his mother’s house (his former residence) by political thugs, in which his mother was injured; and the subsequent burning of the home. 5.7 The complainant also presents new evidence, namely a letter dated 12 February 2011 by the Chief Opposition Whip in the Sri Lanka Parliament, and a letter dated 10 March 2011 by the General Secretary of the UNP trade union, JSS, describing his role in the trade union and mentioning the threats to his life if he were to return to Sri Lanka. 5.8 With regard to the State party’s argument that the UNHCR Regional Office in Canberra declared that it would not intervene in his case, the complainant states that the opinion was given before he had adequate assistance, and it is difficult to comment on it since no arguments were given in support of the decision. The complainant adds that it is unlikely that any information related to his mental condition had been transmitted to UNHCR. 5.9 The complainant states that any possibility for him to relocate in Sri Lanka cannot be envisaged in the current climate, which includes a clampdown on opposition activists and the use of emergency powers to detain those who are perceived to oppose the Government. Given the tight control the Government has over its territory, internal relocation is not likely to avoid the risk of persecution. 5.10 With regard to the physical marks of torture, the medical report of the NSW Refugee Health Service dated 14 March 2011 confirms the existence of scars on the left side of his neck, right flank, over left pelvis and over the lumbar spine. They are not recent scars, although the doctor could not comment on their exact age or cause. The medical report, dated 17 March 2011 confirms scars on the complainant’s lower back and abdomen, and that those scars are consistent with the alleged trauma. 5.11 With regard to the alleged discrepancies concerning the complainant’s disclosure of how he obtained his visa to Australia to the Australian authorities and subsequently to the psychologist on 25 October 2009 (para. 4.9 above), both the purpose for which the psychological report was made and the manner in which it was initiated should be considered. The psychological report did not have an investigative aim, but rather sought to facilitate therapy. The complainant was never able to review the content of the report, and since he was not assisted by an interpreter for that purpose, misunderstandings might have occurred. 5.12 As noted by the State party, the same report refers to the destruction of his mother’s home and identifies the alleged perpetrators as Tamil-speaking men, which allegedly contradicts the version given to the Australian authorities. The complainant alleges that there may have been confusion between him and the psychologists, as two different events were referred to during the interview, namely the invasion of the house that the complainant and his wife had rented in Gokarella, and the invasion and destruction of his mother’s property.13 Contrary to the State party’s contention, the latter event cannot be dissociated from the other harassment episodes experienced by the complainant before he left Sri Lanka. 5.13 As for his alleged torture by the LTTE, the complainant acknowledges that the 2009 defeat of the LTTE has curtailed its capacity to exert influence or commit aggressive acts. Moreover, in terms of the priorities of the entire LTTE organization, it is improbable that he 13 10 Both events are referred to in the complainant’s statement dated 27 May 2009.