CAT/C/61/D/713/2015
UnitedNations / CAT/C/61/D/713/2015/ ConventionagainstTorture
andOtherCruel,Inhuman
orDegradingTreatment
orPunishment / Distr.:General
15September2017
Original:English
CommitteeagainstTorture
DecisionadoptedbytheCommitteeunderarticle22oftheConvention,concerningcommunicationNo.713/2015[*],[**]
Communicationsubmittedby:Y.R.(representedbycounsel)
Allegedvictim:Thecomplainant
Stateparty:Australia
Dateofcomplaint:27October2015(initialsubmission)
Dateofadoptionofdecision:3August2017
Subjectmatter:DeportationtoSriLanka
Substantiveissue:Non-refoulement;tortureprevention
Proceduralissue:Lackofsubstantiation
ArticlesoftheConvention:3and22
1.1ThecomplainantisY.R.,aSriLankannationalofTamilorigin,bornin1989inSriLanka.HesoughtasyluminAustraliabuthisapplicationwasrejectedandherisksdeportationtoSriLanka.HeclaimsthathisdeportationwouldputhimattheriskoftorturebySriLankanauthoritiesandwouldconstituteaviolationbyAustraliaofarticle3oftheConvention.
1.2On12November2015,theCommittee,actingthroughitsRapporteuronnewcomplaintsandinterimmeasures,requestedtheStatepartynottodeportthecomplainanttoSriLankawhilethecomplaintwasbeingconsidered.On19June2017,therequestforinterimmeasureswaslifted.
Thefactsaspresentedbythecomplainant
2.1ThecomplainantwasborninValachchenai,SriLanka,in1989.Between1997and2001,thecomplainant’sfamilyhomewastakenbytheSriLankaArmy.Onanunspecifieddate,hisfatherwenttoSaudiArabiatowork.Hismothermanagedtogetbacktheirhomein2001.Afterthat,armyofficersstartedharassingthecomplainantonhiswaytoandfromschool.Onseveraloccasions,onunspecifieddates,thecomplainantwasdetainedatcheckpointsandbeatenwithsticks.In2002,whenthecomplainantandhisfamilywerevisitingarelative,theirhomewasburntbytheSriLankaArmy.Afterthat,thecomplainantandhisfamilybecamesupportersofTamilNationalAlliance.Hismotherisamemberofthetemplecommitteeintheirlocality.ThecomplainantsupportedtheAllianceintheparliamentaryelectioncampaigninApril2010byaddressingthemeetings,distributingleafletsandpamphletsandgenerallypromotingtheAlliance.WhilestudyingforaBachelor’sdegreeinpoliticalscience,thecomplainantwascontinuouslyharassedbytheparamilitarygroupsTamilMakkalViduthalaiPulikal(TMVP)andEelamPeople’sDemocraticParty(EPDP).Theythreatenedthatifhedidnotjointhem,hewouldbeabductedbya “whitevan”.Thecomplainantwasforcedtoquithisstudies.On15April2012and1May2012,groupsofunknownmencameinawhitevantothefamilyhouse,callingforthecomplainantandhisbrother.Thecomplainantfledthroughthebackdoor.On2May2012,thecomplainantfiledawrittenreportwiththepolice,butnoinvestigationtookplace.Thecomplainantleftthecountryafterthesecondincident.
2.2On18May2012,thecomplainantarrivedinAustraliaandwasdetainedatChristmasIsland.On23August2012,heappliedforaprotectionvisaclaimingthatthelackofsecurityinSriLankaforyoungTamils,ingeneral,andfromthewhitevans,andhisrefusaltojointheparamilitarygroupswouldresultinhisbeingharassedandpossiblykilled,thathewouldbeindangerowingtothelong-standingdisputewiththeSriLankaArmyovertheiroccupationofhisfamilyhomebetween1997and2001,andthathewasamemberofaparticularsocialgroup—afailedasylumseekerwhohadleftthecountryillegally.HeclaimedthatuponreturntoSriLanka,hewouldbedetainedattheairportandtortured.TheAustralianDepartmentofImmigrationandBorderProtectionrefusedtogranthimaprotectionvisaon29October2012.ThecomplainantappliedforameritsreviewtotheRefugeeReviewTribunalon1November2012.TheTribunalupheldtheImmigrationDepartmentdecisionon28June2013.On24July2014,thecomplainantappealedtotheFederalCircuitCourtforajudicialreviewoftheTribunaldecision.TheFederalCircuitCourtdismissedhisappealon28July2014.ThecomplainantrequestedMinisterialinterventionon28July2014.On15September2015,theMinisterdecidednottointervene.
Thecomplaint
3.Thecomplainantclaimstohavesufferedpersecutionandwhitevanabductionattemptsbyparamilitarygroups,TMVPandEPDP(seepara.2.1above).HeclaimsthatifreturnedtoSriLanka,hewouldsuffertortureatthehandsoftheCriminalInvestigationDepartmentandriskabductionbyTMVP,inviolationofarticle3oftheConvention.Healsoclaimsthat,becauseofhisTamilethnicity,owingtohisillegaldeparturefromSriLankaandthefactthathewouldbeafailedasylumseeker,hewillbetakenintocustodybytheSriLankanauthoritiesuponarrivalatColomboAirport.ConditionsinNegomboRemandPrisonarewelldocumentedascramped,unsanitaryandunhygienic;thecomplainantclaimsthatthataloneconstitutesdegradingtreatment,regardlessofthelengthoftimespentthereonremand.
Stateparty’sobservationsonadmissibilityandthemerits
4.1On10May2016,theStatepartysubmittedthatthecomplaintshouldberuledinadmissibleasmanifestlyunfounded.However,shouldtheCommitteeconsiderthecomplainant’sallegationsadmissible,theyshouldbedismissedasbeingwithoutmerit.
4.2TheStatepartysubmitsthatthecomplainant’sclaimsbeforetheCommitteewerethoroughlyconsideredbyaseriesofdomesticdecisionmakers.IntheinterviewwiththedomesticauthoritiesthecomplainantclaimedthatifreturnedtoSriLanka,hewouldbearrested,interrogated,imprisonedandbeatenorkilledbytheSriLankaArmy,theCriminalInvestigationDepartment,theparamilitarywingofTMVP,thepoliceorotherpoliticalgroupssupportingtheGovernmentofSriLankainidentifyingsupportersoftheLiberationTigersof TamilEelam(LTTE).HeclaimedthathewasverylikelytobedetainedforlongperiodswithoutchargeandinterrogatedundertortureuponreturntoSriLanka.
4.3Thecomplainantappliedforaprotectionvisaon23August2012andwasinterviewed—withtheassistanceofaTamilinterpreter—on28August2012.On29October2012,thecomplainant’sapplicationwasrefused.ThedecisionmakerconsideredalltheclaimsthatthecomplainantraisedinhissubmissiontotheCommittee.Thedecisionmakerassessedthecomplainant’sclaimswithreferencetothecountryinformationonSriLankaandfoundthattherewasnotarealriskthathewouldbepersecutedifreturnedtoSriLankaonthebasisofhisrace,politicalopinionorforbeingayoungTamilmanreturningasafailedasylumseeker.Thedecisionmakeralsoconcludedthatthecomplainantdidnotqualifyforcomplementaryprotectionundersection36(2)(aa)oftheMigrationAct,whichreflecttheStateparty’snon-refoulementobligationsundertheConvention.
4.4ThecomplainantsubsequentlyappliedtotheRefugeeReviewTribunalforameritsreviewon1November2012.HewaspresentattheTribunalhearing,assistedbyaregisteredmigrationagentandaTamil-languageinterpreterandwasabletomakeoralsubmissionshimselfandthroughhisagent.TheTribunalhaddoubtsaboutthecredibilityofthecomplainant’sclaimsandconsideredsomeoftheevidencethathepresentedtobevagueandlackinginrelevantdetail.TheTribunaldidnotacceptthecomplainant’sclaimsthatofficersoftheCriminalInvestigationDepartmenthadvisitedhishomeonmultipleoccasionssinceheleftSriLankaorthathewasofanyinteresttotheSriLankaArmyorparamilitarygroups.TheTribunalconcludedthatthecomplainantdidnothaveanadverseprofileatthetimethathehadleftSriLankanorhadhebeensingledoutforharmorotherwisethreatenedbyparamilitarygroups.TheTribunalacceptedthatthecomplainantwouldbechargedwithoffencesundertheImmigrantsandEmigrantsAct(1949)andthathemightbedetainedforanumberofdaysbeforemostlikelybeingfined,ashisultimatepenalty.However,basedontheavailablecountryinformation,theTribunaldidnotconsiderthatthecomplainantwouldbedetainedforaprolongedperiodorotherwisefacetheriskofsignificantharm,includingtorture,uponreturntoSriLanka.On28June2013,theTribunalupheldthedecisionnottograntthecomplainantaprotectionvisa.
4.5On28July2014,theFederalCircuitCourtofAustraliadismissedthecomplainant’sapplicationforajudicialreviewofthedecisionoftheRefugeeReviewTribunal,findingthattheTribunalhadconsideredallthecomplainant’sclaimsandtakenintoaccountallrelevantconsiderationsinmakingitsdecision.
4.6On28July2014,thecomplainantrequestedMinisterialinterventionandputforwardthreenewclaims.Heclaimedthat:ifsentbacktoSriLanka,hewouldbefoundtohaveviolatedsection45(1)(b)oftheImmigrantsandEmigrantsAct(illegaldeparturefromSriLanka);onthisbasis,hewouldsuffercruel,inhumanordegradingtreatmentbecausehewouldbeprosecutedandpunishedunderthatlegislation;andthepenaltiesthathewouldfacecouldbeharsherowingtohisperceivedconnectiontoorsupportforLTTE.On15September2015,theAssistantMinisterforImmigrationandBorderProtectiondeclinedtoexerciseherpowerundersection417oftheMigrationAct.
4.7TheStatepartyprovidedclarificationonthenewevidencethatthecomplainantsubmittedtotheCommittee,namely,aletterwrittenbythecomplainant’sneighbourinSriLanka,whoclaimstohavebeenaneyewitnesstothesecondwhitevanabductionattemptmadeonthecomplainant;acomplaintfiledbythecomplainantwiththepoliceon2May2012aboutoneoftheattemptedwhitevanabductions;andanextractfromareportoftheUnitedNationsOfficeoftheHighCommissionerforHumanRightsasevidenceofwhitevanabductionsinSriLanka.TheStatepartysubmitsthatthefirsttwopiecesofevidenceareinconsistentwitheachotherandthattheclaimsthattheyaremeanttosupporthadbeenconsideredanddismissedbythedomesticauthorities;andthethirdevidencehasnothingrelatingspecificallytothecomplainant’scircumstances.Assuch,thenewpiecesofevidencedonotaddanyweighttohisclaims.
4.8RegardingthestatementfromaSriLankannationalwhowasdetainedandtorturedafterbeingreturnedfromAustralia,theStatepartyobservesthatgiventheRefugeeReviewTribunal’sassessmentofthecircumstancesofthecomplainant’scaseandthenon-personalizednatureoftheinformationinquestion,thisevidencedoesnotaddanyweighttothecomplainant’sclaims.TheStatepartyconcludesthatnoneofthenewevidencesubmittedbythecomplainantindicatesthattherehasbeenanymaterialchangetothecountrysituationsincethecomplainant’sclaimswerelastassessed.
Complainant’scommentsontheStateparty’sobservations
5.Inhissubmissionof26May2016,thecomplainantclaimsthattheStatepartyhasnotassessedwhatwouldhappentohimatColomboAirportuponhisarrival,takingintoaccounthisillegaldeparture,nordiditassessthedangerhewouldfacewhenhereturnedtohishomearea,despitethefactthatmuchofhisclaimsrelatetoeventsthattookplaceinhishomeareawhenhewasastudent.Healsoarguesthatitisnotnecessarytohaveahighprofiletoriskabductionbya “whitevan” andrefers,amongothers,tohissubmissionandatestimonyofayoungTamilreturnee—afailedasylumseekerwithoutahighpoliticalprofile—whowasdetainedattheairportandtortured.
Additionalsubmissionsbytheparties
6.On12Mayand8June2017,theStatepartyrequestedtheCommitteetolifttheinterimmeasures.
7.ThecomplainantsubmittedhiscommentstotheStateparty’srequestson14June2017reiteratinghisclaimthathewouldbeatriskofunlawfuldetention,tortureandabduction.
IssuesandproceedingsbeforetheCommittee
Considerationofadmissibility
8.1Beforeconsideringanycomplaintsubmittedinacommunication,theCommitteemustdecidewhetheritisadmissibleunderarticle22oftheConvention.TheCommitteehasascertained,asitisrequiredtodounderarticle22(5)(a)oftheConvention,thatthesamematterhasnotbeenandisnotbeingexaminedunderanotherprocedureofinternationalinvestigationorsettlement.
8.2TheCommitteerecallsthat,inaccordancewitharticle22(5)(b)oftheConvention,itshallnotconsideranycomplaintunlessithasascertainedthatallavailabledomesticremedieshavebeenexhausted.TheCommitteenotesthat,inthepresentcase,theStatepartyhasnotchallengedtheadmissibilityofthecomplaintonthisground.
8.3TheCommitteetakesnoteoftheStateparty’sargumentthatthecomplaintshouldbedeclaredinadmissibleforlackofsubstantiation.TheCommittee,however,considersthattheargumentsbeforeitraisesubstantiveissuesunderarticle3oftheConvention,whichshouldbedealtwithonthemeritsandnotonadmissibilityconsiderationsalone.AstheCommitteefindsnofurtherobstaclestoadmissibility,itdeclaresthepresentcomplaintadmissibleandproceedswithitsconsiderationofthemerits.
Considerationofthemerits
9.1TheCommitteehasconsideredthecommunicationinthelightofalltheinformationmadeavailabletoitbytheparties,inaccordancewitharticle22(4)oftheConvention.
9.2Inthepresentcase,theissuebeforetheCommitteeiswhetherthereturnofthecomplainanttoSriLankawouldconstituteaviolationoftheStateparty’sobligationunderarticle3oftheConventionnottoexpelortoreturn(refouler)apersontoanotherStatewheretherearesubstantialgroundsforbelievingthatheorshewouldbeindangerofbeingsubjectedtotorture.
9.3TheCommitteemustevaluatewhethertherearesubstantialgroundsforbelievingthatthecomplainantwouldbepersonallyindangerofbeingsubjectedtotortureuponreturntoSriLanka.Inassessingthatrisk,theCommitteemusttakeintoaccountallrelevantconsiderations,pursuanttoarticle3(2)oftheConvention,includingtheexistenceofaconsistentpatternofgross,flagrantormassviolationsofhumanrights.Inthiscontext,theCommitteereferstoitsconsiderationofthefifthperiodicreportofSriLanka,[1]duringwhichitvoicedseriousconcernsaboutreportssuggestingthatabductions,tortureandill-treatmentperpetratedbyStatesecurityforcesinSriLanka,includingthepolice,hadcontinuedinmanypartsofthecountryaftertheconflictwithLTTEhadendedinMay2009.[2]TheCommitteehadalsoexpressedconcernatreprisalsagainstvictimsandwitnessesofactsoftortureandatactsofabductionandtortureinunacknowledgeddetentionfacilities,andhadenquiredwhetheraprompt,impartialandeffectiveinvestigationofsuchactshadbeenundertaken.[3]However,theCommitteerecallsthattheaimoftheevaluationistoestablishwhethertheindividualconcernedwouldbepersonallyataforeseeableandrealriskofbeingsubjectedtotortureinthecountrytowhichheorshewouldbereturned.Itfollowsthattheexistenceofapatternofgross,flagrantormassviolationsofhumanrightsinacountrydoesnotassuchconstitutesufficientreasonfordeterminingthataparticularpersonwouldbeindangerofbeingsubjectedtotortureonreturntothatcountry;additionalgroundsmustbeadducedtoshowthattheindividualconcernedwouldbepersonallyatrisk.[4]
9.4TheCommitteerecallsitsgeneralcommentNo.1(1997)ontheimplementationofarticle3oftheConvention,accordingtowhichtheriskoftorturemustbeassessedongroundsthatgobeyondmeretheoryorsuspicion.Whiletheriskdoesnothavetomeetthetestofbeinghighlyprobable(para.6),theCommitteerecallsthattheburdenofproofgenerallyfallsonthecomplainant,whomustpresentanarguablecasethatheorshefacesaforeseeable,realandpersonalrisk.[5]Although,underthetermsofgeneralcommentNo.1,theCommitteemustgiveconsiderableweighttothefindingsoffactthataremadebyorgansoftheStatepartyconcerned,itisnotboundbysuchfindingsandisfreetoassessthefactsonthebasisofthefullsetofcircumstancesineverycase(para.9).[6]
9.5Inthepresentcase,thecomplainantclaimsthathewillbedetainedandtorturedifreturnedtoSriLankaasafailedasylumseekerwholeftthecountryillegally,andthathewillfacetheriskoftortureandpossiblydeathfromparamilitarygroupswhopersecutedhimbeforeheleftthecountry.TheCommitteetakesnoteoftheStateparty’ssubmissionthat:thecomplainanthasfailedtoprovidecredibleevidenceandtosubstantiatethatthereisaforeseeable,realandpersonalriskthathewouldbesubjectedtotorturebytheauthoritiesifreturnedtoSriLanka;andhisclaimswerethoroughlyreviewedbythecompetentdomesticauthoritiesandcourts,inaccordancewithdomesticlegislationandtakingintoaccountthecurrenthumanrightssituationinSriLanka.
9.6TheCommitteenotesthecomplainant’sclaimsthat:hewasharassedbytheSriLankaArmyonhiswayto/fromschoolafterthefamilyhadre-appropriatedtheirhousefromtheArmyin2001;bothheandhismotherwereactivesupportersoftheTamilNationalAlliance;asastudent,hewasharassedandthreatenedbyTMVPandEPDPregardingjoiningthem;andtherehadbeenattemptstoabducthimandhisbrotherbyunknownmenwhocametohisfamilyhomeinawhitevan.TheCommitteealsonotesthecomplainant’sclaimsthathewillbedetainedandtorturedattheairportasafailedasylumseekerwhohadleftthecountryillegally.TheCommitteeobservesthat:theharassmentofthecomplainantbytheSriLankaArmydatesbackto2005-2006andthecomplainantcontinuedtoattendschool;thecomplainantcontinuedlivinginhisfamilyhomeuntilheleftthecountryin2012.Thesubmissionpresentsgeneralclaimsaboutthreatsbyparamilitarygroupswhilethecomplainantwasstudyingatuniversity.TheCommitteefurthernotesthatthecomplainant’smother,asupporteroftheTamilNationalAlliance,continuedtoliveinthesamefamilyhomewithoutanyreportedproblems.Histwobrothers,oneofwhomwasallegedlythreatened,alongwiththecomplainant,byunknownmenwhohadcometotheirhouseinawhitevan,stayedinthefamilyhomeandcontinuedtheirstudieswithoutanyreportedproblems,afterthecomplainanthadleftSriLanka.
9.7Regardingthecomplainant’sclaimthatherisksbeingsubjectedtotortureuponreturntoSriLankaowingtohisstatusasafailedasylumseeker,theCommittee,referringspecificallytoitsconcludingobservationsonthefifthperiodicreportofSriLanka,inwhichitexpressedconcernabout,interalia,reportsregardingthepersistenceofabductions,tortureandill-treatmentperpetratedbyStatesecurityforcesinSriLanka,includingthemilitaryandthepolice,whichhadcontinuedinmanypartsofthecountryaftertheconflictwithLTTEhadendedinMay2009,andnotingcrediblereportsbynon-governmentalorganizations[7]concerningthetreatmentofreturnedindividualsbytheSriLankanauthorities,considersthattheforegoingshowsthatSriLankansofTamilethnicitywithapriorpersonalorfamilialconnectiontoLTTEwhoareforciblyreturnedtoSriLankamayfaceariskoftorture.[8]However,whilenotunderestimatingtheconcernsthatmaylegitimatelybeexpressedwithrespecttothecurrenthumanrightssituationinSriLanka,theCommitteerecallsthattheoccurrenceofhumanrightsviolationsinone’scountryoforiginisnotsufficientinitselftoconcludethatanindividualrunsapersonalriskoftorture.[9]TheCommitteealsorecallsthat,althoughpasteventsmaybeofrelevance,theprinciplequestionbeforetheCommitteeiswhetherthecomplainantcurrentlyrunsariskoftortureifreturnedtoSriLanka.[10]TheCommitteenotesthat,initsassessmentofthecomplainant’sapplicationforaprotectionvisa,theStateparty’sauthoritiesconsideredthepossibleriskofill-treatmentoffailedasylumseekersuponreturntoSriLankaandisoftheviewthat,inthepresentcase,theStateparty’sauthoritiesgaveappropriateconsiderationtothecomplainant’sclaim.
9.8InthelightoftheforegoingandonthebasisofalltheinformationsubmittedbythecomplainantandtheStateparty,includingonthegeneralsituationofhumanrightsinSriLanka,theCommitteeconsidersthatthecomplainanthasnotdischargedtheburdenofproof[11]ashehasnotadequatelydemonstratedtheexistenceofsubstantialgroundsforbelievingthathisforcibleremovaltohiscountryoforiginwouldexposehimtoaforeseeable,realandpersonalriskoftorturewithinthemeaningofarticle3oftheConvention.AlthoughthecomplainantdisagreeswiththeassessmentofhisclaimsbytheStateparty’sauthorities,hehasfailedtodemonstratethatthedecisiontorefusehimaprotectionvisawasclearlyarbitraryoramountedtoadenialofjustice.
10.Consequently,theCommitteeconsidersthatthecomplainanthasnotprovidedsufficientevidencetoenableittoconcludethathisforcibleremovaltohiscountryoforiginwouldexposehimtoaforeseeable,realandpersonalriskoftorturewithinthemeaningofarticle3oftheConvention.
11.TheCommittee,actingunderarticle22(7)oftheConvention,decidesthatthecomplainant’sremovaltoSriLankabytheStatepartywouldnotconstituteabreachofarticle3oftheConvention.
1
[*]*AdoptedbytheCommitteeatitssixty-firstsession(24July-11August2017).
[**]**ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthecommunication:EssadiaBelmir,AlessioBruni,FeliceGaer,AbdelwahabHani,ClaudeHellerRouassant,JensModvig,AnaRacu,SébastienTouzéandKeningZhang.
[1]SeeCAT/C/SR.1472and1475;andCAT/C/LKA/CO/5,paras.9-12.
[2]SeeCAT/C/LKA/CO/3-4,para.6.
[3]SeeCAT/C/SR.1472,paras.36and42;andCAT/C/SR.1475,paras.10and27.
[4]SeecommunicationsNo.282/2005,S.P.A.v.Canada,decisionadoptedon7November2006;No333/2007,T.I.v.Canada,decisionadoptedon15November2010;andNo344/2008,A.M.A.v.Switzerland,decisionadoptedon12November2010.
[5]Seealsocommunication203/2003,A.R.v.theNetherlands,decisionadoptedon14November2003,para.7.3.
[6]See,forexample,communicationNo.356/2008,N.S.v.Switzerland,decisionadoptedon6May2010,para.7.3.
[7]See,forexample,FreedomfromTorture,TaintedPeace:TortureinSriLankasinceMay2009,August2015,availableat:AnUnfinishedWar,TortureandSexualViolenceinSriLanka2009-2014,March2014,availableat
[8]SeecommunicationNo.628/2014,J.N.v.Denmark,decisionadoptedon13May2016,para.7.9.
[9]See,forexample,communicationNo.426/2010,R.D.v.Switzerland,decisionadoptedon8November2013,para.9.2.
[10]See,forexample,communicationsNo.61/1996,X,YandZv.Sweden,decisionadoptedon6May1998,para.11.2;No.435/2010,G.B.M.v.Sweden,decisionadoptedon14November2012,para.7.7;andNo.458/2011,X.v.Denmark,decisionadoptedon28November2014,para.9.5.
[11]SeecommunicationNo.429/2010,Sivagnanaratnamv.Denmark,decisionadoptedon11November2013,paras.10.5-10.6.