CCPR/C/116/D/2314/2013 the first stage of the asylum proceedings. It is further submitted that the letter is likely a forgery prepared to address the author’s lack of credibility and corroboration issues that had been identified by the Immigration Refugee Board. As regards the letter from N.R. dated 21 November 2012 indicating that he had worked with the author for the Uthayan between late 2006 and August 2007, the State party considers that it may be genuine but submits that it would only demonstrate that the author had worked for the newspaper for a few months between 2006 and 2007, but not beyond mid-2007. As regards the affidavit signed by the author’s mother dated 23 November 2012 confirming most of the author’s claims, the State party considers that this document is not reliable, as it does not provide any independent substantiation and no plausible explanation regarding the reasons why it was provided at the later stage of the asylum proceedings. The State party submits that it is likely a forgery prepared to support the author’s claims, following what he stated in his personal information form. The State party finally submits that the undated letter by Ms. S. stating that she knew the author and that he was a photojournalist is also likely a forgery prepared to support the author’s claims. 4.6 The State party acknowledges that the author appears to have suffered some injuries in February 2007,25 possibly inflicted by soldiers of the Sri Lankan Army. However, it considers that nothing demonstrates that these injuries were the result of the author’s work as photographer for the newspaper and, even if the injuries were serious, they did not amount to torture. In addition, the State party submits that the author did not substantiate his allegations of harassment, detention and mistreatment by various State officials or associated groups from December 2007 to July 2011, as he did not provide any supporting evidence, such as a medical certificate or documents proving that he had to report every week to the police station for over 18 months. The State party considers that the author’s account relating to this period lacks details, as he only mentioned that he had to live in different places owing to security reasons. The State party considers that doubts can be raised as to the actual stay of the author in Jaffna — or Sri Lanka — after 2007 or 2008 at the latest. 4.7 The State party submits that it does not dispute that journalists currently working in Sri Lanka are in danger,26 including those working for the Uthayan. However, it considers that the author has not substantiated that his locally focused work for this newspaper could attract the attention of the national authorities, in particular if he published his photographs under an alias. In addition, the background material consulted by the State party does not suggest that individuals who have worked in the past for the Uthayan would be at risk if returned to Sri Lanka, as the country reports state that only journalists currently working in Sri Lanka are in danger. Therefore, the author would not face a real risk, as he allegedly contributed to the newspaper years ago. The State party also affirms that the author did not provide any evidence that he would still be sought by the authorities because of his work with the newspaper, and considers that the letter by the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka stating that soldiers of the Sri Lankan Army came to the author’s home asking for his whereabouts in September 2013 is a mere recitation of information allegedly provided to the Commission by the author’s mother. 25 26 As stated by the medical certificate provided by the author and as confirmed by Mr. N.R in his letter. The State party cites several sources, including the concluding observations of the Committee against Torture on Sri Lanka (CAT/C/LKA/CO/3-4); UNHCR, Eligibility Guidelines (see note 8 above); United States Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2013: Sri Lanka (27 February 2014), available from www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2013/sca/220404.htm; Human Rights Watch, “World Report 2014 – Sri Lanka”, available from www.hrw.org/worldreport/2014/country-chapters/sri-lanka; operational guidance note on Sri Lanka (see note 7 above); United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum Chamber, GJ and others (post-civil war: returnees) Sri Lanka CG [2013] UKUT 00319 (IAC), available from www.refworld.org/pdfid/51da951c4.pdf. 9