CCPR/C/116/D/2314/2013 State party considers that, even if the Committee accepts the author’s version of the facts, the communication would still be without merit, as there is no reason to believe that whatever work he did for the newspaper would put him at risk if returned now, many years after. His claims relating to his profile are not accepted either, as being a Tamil from the North and a failed asylum seeker would not in themselves put him at risk of irreparable harm because he has no suspected or real links to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. 4.11 Finally, the State party submits that the author’s allegation related to the lack of fairness of the asylum proceedings, in particular the impossibility of reviewing the merits of the decision of the Immigration Refugee Board, are out of the scope of the Covenant because it concerns the general effectiveness of asylum proceedings. In addition, these allegations are unfounded because the judicial review by the Federal Court has been recognized by the Committee as an effective domestic remedy31 that should therefore have been exhausted by the author. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 11 January 2016, the author submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. He challenges the State’s party affirmation that he has not exhausted all available domestic remedies because he did not apply for an application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The author considers that this remedy is not relevant for purposes of admissibility because, as stated by the Committee in Shakeel v. Canada, an application made on humanitarian and compassionate grounds “does not shield the author from deportation, and therefore cannot be described as offering him an effective remedy”. 32 5.2 Regarding the State party’s allegation that the communication is manifestly unfounded, the author reiterates his arguments related to the risk that he would face if returned to Sri Lanka, namely, that: (a) he worked for the Uthayan, which is considered to be the “mouthpiece” of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam; (b) he is an ethnic Tamil; (c) he is 30 years old; (d) he is from the northern province of Sri Lanka; (e) he is a failed asylum seeker; and (f) he would be forcibly removed to Sri Lanka with an emergency travel document obtained through the Sri Lanka High Commission in Ottawa. The author states that he relies on his previous submissions to the Committee and adds information that became available after he submitted his complaint. 5.3 The author states that there is documentary evidence that Tamils are still suffering grave human rights violations in Sri Lanka, even though the conflict has ended. He states that it has been proven that young and middle aged Tamils, especially in the north and east, continue to suffer frequent harassment by security forces and paramilitary groups. 33 Tamils are also disproportionately affected by arbitrary detentions, extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances, custodial rape, torture and prolonged detention without trial.34 The author further states that, although being Tamil is not sufficient to demonstrate a wellfounded fear of persecution, when combined with other factors, it gives a strong basis to the claim that he would be exposed to a real risk if returned to Sri Lanka. 5.4 One such other factor is that he is a failed asylum seeker. He indicates that Tamils who have been returned to Sri Lanka, forcibly or voluntary, have been subjected to ill- 31 32 33 34 The State party cites, for example, communication No. 1578/2007, Dastgir v. Canada, decision adopted on 30 October 2008. See Shakeel v. Canada, (note 23 above), para. 7.4. The author cites United States Department of State, 2014 Human Rights Reports: Sri Lanka (25 June 2015), available from www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm#wrapper. Ibid. 11