CAT/C/51/D/387/2009 period of time during which the RRT process took place.9 Therefore, his subsequent detention and threats of forceful return to Sri Lanka might have exacerbated his PTSD, but were not the cause of it. 5.3 With regard to the inconsistencies and omissions noted during the RRT hearing, the medical report dated 17 March 2011 states that any assessment of any apparent inconsistencies in the complainant’s account would need to be considered in the light of the fact that his capacity to concentrate and perform well under situations such as crossexamination would be affected not only by his PTSD and major depression illnesses, but also because the matters which are discussed would evoke distress and compromise his capacity to give a consistent and accurate story. In spite of this, the RRT did not take into account the complainant’s mental illnesses when considering what it took to be inconsistencies and omissions in his account. The RRT only considered that the burden of proof was on the complainant to bring medical evidence before it. 5.4 The complainant contends that the UNHCR 2009 guidelines are relevant in his case as it confirms that Sinhalese who are perceived to oppose government policies, as well as political figures and officials of any party who express public criticism of the Government, are at risk of targeted action by government actors or pro-Government paramilitary groups.10 Given the complainant’s profile in the UNP as an outspoken critic of the Sri Lankan Government and his leadership in trade union protests and rallies, the guidelines corroborate his claims of being at risk of targeted action. In its observations, the State party quotes the UNHCR 2010 guidelines, which state that there is no longer a need for the formerly recommended “group-based” prtotection measures and “presumption” of eligibility (solely on the basis of risk of “indiscriminate harm”) for Tamils from the north. However, given that the complainant is not a Tamil from the North who is fleeing generalized violence, it is difficult to understand the relevance of this quotation to his claims. 5.5 With regard to the current human rights situation in Sri Lanka, the complainant considers that there is still an atmosphere of repression and impunity whereby the Sri Lankan government security apparatus targets various segments of Sri Lankan society, including trade unionists and activists in opposition political parties.11 A recent United Kingdom Home Office country of origin report states that there have been frequent attacks on JVP offices and campaigners, both during the southern provincial election campaign in July and August 2009, and since the presidential campaign began in November 2010.12 5.6 With regard to personal risk, the complainant reiterates his allegations and contends that his political opponents in the Sri Lankan Government have identified and targeted him as a result of his political and trade union activities. The incidents set out in the statement include attacks at rallies, at which he spoke, by a group which included a member of the Sri Lankan Government; the search for him at his family home by political thugs, including a 9 10 11 12 The complainant refers to the report of 8 February 2009 by clinical psychologist, Guy Coffey, Foundation House, and the report of 25 October 2009 by clinical psychologist, Heyam Haddad, NSW-STARTTS. The complainant refers to UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from Sri Lanka, April 2009, pp. 23–26, available at http://www.refworld.org/docid/49de0b6b2.html. The complainant refers, inter alia, to Human Rights Watch, World Report 2011: Sri Lanka, January 2011; United Kingdom: Home Office, Operational Guidance Note: Sri Lanka, March 2011 (OGN v 11.0); REDRESS, Submission from AHRC, RCT and REDRESS to UN Panel on Sri Lanka, 15 December 2010. United Kingdom: Home Office, Country of Origin Information Report – Sri Lanka, 11 November 2010. 9