CAT/C/61/D/725/2016 result of this event. Furthermore, the medical certificate from Sri Lanka appeared to be backdated and was most likely issued while the complainant was in Australia. Consequently, the Department did not consider it to be credible evidence and did not accept the new claim he had been harmed during the incident at the university. 4.18 The State party submits that the complainant provided further evidence to support his claim of harm from the Tamil Tigers and Criminal Investigation Department. This included the above-mentioned letter from his father, detailing allegations that family members had been targeted by the Tamil Tigers for forcible recruitment and that members of the Criminal Investigation Department and the Tamil Tigers had assaulted the complainant and his father. It also included the above-mentioned letter from the complainant’s mother, attesting to the assault by the Criminal Investigation Department officers and threats made to her eldest son and husband. Both letters alleged that the Criminal Investigation Department were still looking for the complainant and the letter from his mother alleged that he would be detained and tortured if returned to Sri Lanka. The Refugee Review Tribunal accepted that the complainant had experienced some harassment from the Tamil Tigers while growing up and had to move around. However, it did not accept that he had suffered harm from the Criminal Investigation Department, or that he was at risk of suffering harm on return to Sri Lanka. His claim relating to his brother and uncles being forcibly recruited by the Tamil Tigers and his claim of being assaulted were raised for the first time in his second ministerial intervention request, which concluded he had not advanced any credible new claims. 4.19 According to the State party, sources19 suggest Tamils who are suspected of having links to the Tamil Tigers may be detained and tortured upon return to Sri Lanka. However, the Refugee Review Tribunal did not accept that the complainant had been or would be identified or perceived to be a member or supporter of the Tamil Tigers. 20 Furthermore, country information from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade suggests that close relatives of Tamil Tigers members, particularly high-profile members, who are wanted by Sri Lankan authorities may be subject to monitoring. Thus, even if the Department of Immigration and Border Protection were to accept the claim as credible as a result of the new evidence, it would not alter the finding that the complainant was not a person in respect of whom the State party had protection obligations, as there was no evidence to indicate his uncles or brother were high-profile members of the Tamil Tigers or wanted by authorities, and monitoring, in and of itself, does not constitute torture under the Convention or otherwise engage the State party’s non-refoulement obligations. 4.20 The State party submits that there has been no relevant adverse change to the country situation since the complainant’s claims were last assessed to indicate that its nonrefoulement obligations would be engaged in his case. It asserts that, in respect of domestic processes and in submissions to the Committee, the complainant has not established the existence of additional grounds to show he is at a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture if returned to Sri Lanka. Furthermore, the issues raised by him relating to the human rights violations in and the return of asylum seekers to Sri Lanka have been specifically and carefully considered by all domestic processes. Relevant decision makers considered extensive country information and concluded that the complainant did not have a profile of significance that might draw adverse attention. The State party therefore reiterates that the complainant has not provided sufficient evidence that indicates he would be personally at 19 20 8 See Human Rights Watch, World Report 2016 (New York, 2015), pp. 530-532. Available from www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/world_report_download/wr2016_web.pdf. See also Amnesty International, Report 2015/16 (London, 2016), p. 340. Available from www.amnesty.org/en/documents/pol10/2552/2016/en. Since his election in January 2015, President Maithripala Sirisena, who was supported by the Tamil National Alliance, has reduced the number of banned organizations and individuals related to the Tamil Tigers from 16 and 424 to 8 and 155, respectively, in an effort to aid reconciliation with Tamils. Furthermore, when speaking to the Prime Ministers of Australia and Canada at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, the President invited Sri Lankans who had fled to those countries to return. President Sirisena also released 30 suspected former Tamil rebels from detention on bail and returned thousands of acres of confiscated land to Tamils.