CAT/C/83/D/1147/2022

GE.25-20938 (E) 140126 140126

Committee against Torture

Decision adopted by the Committee under article 22 of the

Convention, concerning communication No. 1147/2022*, **

Communication submitted by:

M.N. (represented by counsel, Bernhard Jüsi)

Alleged victim:

The complainant

State Party:

Switzerland

Date of complaint:

5 August 2022 (initial submission)

Document references:

Decision taken pursuant to rules 114 and 115 of

the Committee’s rules of procedure, transmitted

to the State Party on 16 August 2022 (not issued

in document form)

Date of adoption of decision:

14 November 2025

Subject matter:

Deportation to Sri Lanka

Procedural issue:

None

Substantive issue:

Risk to life or risk of torture or other cruel,

inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,

if deported to country of origin

(non-refoulement)

Article of the Convention:

3

1.1

The complainant is M.N., a national of Sri Lanka born in 1987. He claims that the

State Party would violate his rights under article 3 of the Convention if it removed him to Sri

Lanka. The State Party made the declaration provided for in article 22 (1) of the Convention

on 2 December 1986. The complainant is represented by counsel.

1.2

On 16 August 2022, pursuant to rule 114 of its rules of procedure, the Committee,

acting through its Rapporteur on new complaints and interim measures, requested the State

Party not to deport the complainant to Sri Lanka while the communication was being

considered.

1.3

On 19 August 2022, the State Party informed the Committee that, in accordance with

its established procedure, the State Secretariat for Migration had requested the competent

authority to refrain from taking any steps to deport the complainant, so that he could be

assured of remaining in Switzerland pending the consideration of his complaint by the

Committee.

* Adopted by the Committee at its eighty-third session (10–28 November 2025).

** The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the communication:

Todd Buchwald, Jorge Contesse, Claude Heller, Erdogan Iscan, Peter Vedel Kessing, Liu Huawen,

Maeda Naoko, Ana Racu, Abderrazak Rouwane and Bakhtiyar Tuzmukhamedov.

United Nations

CAT/C/83/D/1147/2022

Convention against Torture

and Other Cruel, Inhuman

or Degrading Treatment

or Punishment

Distr.: General

15 January 2026

Original: English

CAT/C/83/D/1147/2022

2

GE.25-20938

Factual background

2.1

The complainant is a Tamil from the Vanni area. He has two older sisters and two

younger brothers. One of his brothers was forcibly recruited by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil

Eelam (LTTE), apparently because he looked relatively old for his age, and older than the

complainant. He was taken in 2007, for about 12 to 18 months. In March 2008, towards the

end of the war, when LTTE was short of fighters, the complainant was also forcibly recruited.

He was picked up from his home and taken to a bunker to be registered. He underwent

physical training and stayed with LTTE for about three months, until he managed to escape.1

He then went to live with relatives in a different area until the end of 2008.

2.2

In January 2009, the complainant was again forcibly recruited by LTTE.2 So as not to

be punished as a deserter, he declared that he had never undergone any training with LTTE.

He was able to escape again.3 At the end of March 2009, the village where he was living was

captured by the Sri Lankan army, bringing the complainant and his family under the control

of the Sri Lankan authorities. They were subsequently taken to a refugee camp. During this

time, the army announced that those who had been with LTTE would have to register. The

complainant’s younger brother registered, but the complainant did not. In May or June 2009,

the complainant’s brother was taken away for rehabilitation and was detained for two years.4

2.3

The complainant and his family remained in the camp for about six months before

moving to Jaffna.5 In 2010 and 2011, the complainant lived in Jaffna without registering. He

almost never left the house for fear of being discovered, arrested and questioned. At the end

of 2011, he decided to register so that he could leave the house and work. He started working

in a phone shop in Jaffna. In May 2012, the Counter-terrorism Investigation Division of the

Sri Lanka police searched for the complainant and took him away for questioning. He was

asked if he was part of LTTE, threatened, hit with rifle butts, kicked and pinched with pliers.

He still has a wound on his elbow. After about two hours, he was released.

2.4

In August 2012, the same agents from the Counter-terrorism Investigation Division

searched again for the complainant and arrested him at his sister’s residence. They took him

for interrogation. He was interrogated for five or six hours, again accused of involvement

with LTTE and of not being rehabilitated. The complainant again refused to confess. A third

time, in November 2012, four Sri Lankan army soldiers took the complainant to a camp for

interrogation. They threatened him with death and asked him about his activities with LTTE.

Again, the complainant was beaten with rifle butts and injured his elbow. Then the soldiers

brought him back6 on a motorbike.

2.5

After those events, the complainant moved back to the Vanni area and lived there

during 2013 and 2014. He never left his house, out of fear of being recognized, arrested and

questioned again. The Counter-terrorism Investigation Division continued to look for him at

his sister’s house. On around 15 January 2016,7 the agents found him at his parents’ shop and

took him away for interrogation. The agents asked him about his membership with LTTE

and why he had not gone for rehabilitation. They pinched his fingers with pliers. They further

asked him if he knew where LTTE weapons, jewellery and funds were hidden and if he knew

about any other LTTE combatants. Upon his release, the agents told him that he was not

allowed to leave the area. The complainant realized that next time he would not be released,

so he began to plan his departure. On 27 March 2016, the complainant travelled to

Switzerland via Singapore, with a forged visa, and applied for asylum on 29 March 2016.

2.6

The State Secretariat for Migration interviewed the complainant on 31 March 2016

and 22 November 2018. To support his grounds for asylum, the complainant submitted

1 No further details were provided.

2 No further details were provided.

3 No further details were provided.

4 No further details were provided. In his communication, the complainant mentioned that his brother

“was released from detention” in 2012 and left Sri Lanka in 2013. He was living at present as a

recognized asylum-seeker in Germany.

5 No further details were provided.

6 The complainant does not specify to where he was brought back.

7 No information was provided on his situation in 2015.

CAT/C/83/D/1147/2022

GE.25-20938

3

photographs of scars and confirmation that he was receiving physiotherapy for the torture

that he had allegedly suffered.

2.7

On 5 March 2020, the State Secretariat for Migration rejected the complainant’s

asylum application and ordered his return. It found the complainant’s claims to be

inconsistent and not supported by any evidence: in the first interview, the complainant had

mentioned that, on around 15 January 2016, he was taken by agents to different places and

beaten there, while in the second, he had declared that, in 2016, he was detained in one place,

namely a house. When his attention was drawn to that contradiction, the complainant’s

statement that he had been upset at the time and that he had maybe expressed himself

incorrectly was not deemed to be convincing. The State Secretariat also noted that the

complainant had mentioned during the first interview that the agents belonged to the Criminal

Investigation Department, while, in the second, he also mentioned the Counter-terrorism

Investigation Division. He had not been able to clarify that contradiction, declaring that he

had probably mixed it up and had mistakenly referred to the Criminal Investigation Division

instead of the Counter-terrorism Investigation Division. Furthermore, the complainant had

mentioned in the second interview that he was released in 2016 on the condition that he was

not to leave the area, but he had not mentioned that at all in the first interview. The

complainant had not clarified that inconsistency.

2.8

The State Secretariat for Migration then noted that the complainant’s arguments

regarding the various arrests had often lacked substance. For example, he had stated several

times that the agents had asked or done “the same thing”. He had declared that the first arrest

took place in May 2012 and that, in August 2012, he was taken away again. But when asked

what they had wanted to know about him, the complainant had only stated that they asked

“the same thing”. The complainant had then declared that they asked about his rehabilitation.

When asked by the State Secretariat how he had been treated during the time he was taken

away, the complainant had initially only answered “the same”. For the State Secretariat, those

very general descriptions had reinforced the already existing doubts about the credibility of

the complainant’s claims because a person who claims to have been arrested several times

could be expected to give a more detailed account of those arrests.

2.9

The State Secretariat for Migration considered that the complainant’s descriptions of

his release from the army camp without prior rehabilitation seemed to contradict the reality.

It was unrealistic that the agents would have released a young man of the complainant’s age

from a camp without rehabilitation and without taking a closer look at his past as a possible

LTTE member. In the Sri Lankan context of the time, it could hardly be assumed that a young

man could have been taken away and questioned several times on that suspicion, but could

also have been released each time without any problems. Rather, it could be assumed that if

the authorities had actually suspected the complainant of LTTE membership and

non-rehabilitation, they would have proceeded differently and would not have been content

with short detentions and subsequent releases, spread over several years. In conclusion, the

State Secretariat considered that the complainant had relied on a constructed or at least

partially constructed justification for asylum.

2.10

The complainant appealed, claiming that the State Secretariat for Migration had taken

his statements out of context and that irregularities in his statements were due to the fact that

the first interview had taken place only a few days after his flight and the second two and a

half years later. The complainant submitted that he had explained every single arrest in detail

and that the fact that the interviewer had interrupted him a total of eight times had had a direct

influence on his narrative structure.

2.11

On 4 July 2022, the Federal Administrative Court dismissed the complainant’s appeal.

The Court considered that, even if a subjective fear on the part of the complainant was

understandable given what he had experienced, the requirements for an objectively justified

fear were not fulfilled. The fact that the complainant had been released from the camp

together with his mother after being questioned about his possible LTTE past was, for the

Federal Administrative Court, a sign that the Sri Lankan authorities had not seriously

suspected the complainant of having special relations with LTTE. The same applied to the

fact that the complainant had always been released after short-term arrests. For the Court, a

serious suspicion of LTTE membership would have very probably led to the complainant’s

definite arrest. While not downplaying the actions of the Sri Lankan authorities, the Court

CAT/C/83/D/1147/2022

4

GE.25-20938

inferred that they had hoped to obtain information from the complainant, but had not

suspected him, given that they were aware that virtually all residents of the north of the

complainant’s age had been in contact in one way or another, voluntarily or otherwise, with

LTTE.

2.12

The Federal Administrative Court then noted that, during his first interview, the

complainant had not mentioned that the order received during his last arrest not to leave the

area and the associated fear of being permanently imprisoned were a central point of his

motivation for leaving the country, although he would be expected to at least address the

relevant motives for fleeing. The Court also noted that the complainant had received an

authentic passport as early as 2010 or 2011, and then again in 2014, which he had used to

leave Sri Lanka legally from Colombo airport.

2.13

The Federal Administrative Court accepted that the complainant might be questioned

by the border authorities upon his return to Sri Lanka, but considered that such a procedure

could not be regarded as persecution, and that there were no relevant indications that the Sri

Lankan authorities had any interest in persecuting the complainant. The Court also accepted

that his brother’s connections to LTTE amounted to a high-risk factor for the complainant.

However, that fact in itself did not allow the conclusion that the complainant belonged to the

group of persons who were likely to risk serious disadvantages within the meaning of the

asylum law, in the event of a return. The Court noted that the complainant’s brother had

already left Sri Lanka, in 2013, and that the complainant himself was able to leave Sri Lanka

three years later without being bothered. The Court considered that the fact that the brother

had obtained asylum in Germany did not change that assessment.

2.14

With regard to the scars, the Federal Administrative Court noted that the photographs

produced could not be used as evidence because they showed only individual parts of the

body and the complainant could not be identified. In any event, the Court noted that the scars

were not clearly visible and that it was perfectly possible to cover them with clothing. The

Court also considered that the fact that the complainant came from the Vanni region or would

return there did not decisively raise the risk of persecution because he also had the possibility

of going to Jaffna city and living there before returning to Vanni. To conclude, the Court held

that – even taking into account the latest developments in Sri Lanka – it could not be assumed

that the complainant was perceived by the Government of Sri Lanka as belonging to the small

group that was striving to revive Tamil separatism and would thus pose a threat to the unified

Sri Lankan State. Lastly, it noted that the complainant had not produced any evidence of

medical problems, except for a sleep disorder mentioned in a medical report of 19 May 2021.

Complaint

3.1

The complainant claims that his deportation to Sri Lanka would constitute a violation

of his rights under article 3 of the Convention.

3.2

The complainant points out that, according to Swiss jurisprudence, persons suspected

of having been associated with LTTE in particular are at an increased risk of prosecution.

Other risk factors are: origin from the Vanni area, previous imprisonment, family members

connected with LTTE, return from abroad and scars on the body.8 The complainant declares

that he fulfils all these criteria: he was detained, interrogated, tortured and threatened with

death four times, by both the Counter-terrorism Investigation Division and the Sri Lankan

army. The Sri Lankan authorities are still searching for him at his family home. The scars

prove that he has already been tortured and they will be considered a sign of his past with

LTTE in case of return. His brother was in LTTE, but fled the country and obtained asylum

in Germany. As the State Party accepts that the complainant will most likely be detained and

examined in case of return, it must be expected that he will be exposed to the risk of torture,

as in the past. For the complainant, finding this procedure credible but denying its relevance

for asylum amounts to a violation of article 3.

3.3

The complainant also considers that the Federal Administrative Court violated his

procedural guarantees when it classified the photographs of the scars as unsuitable for being

considered as evidence because it was not possible to determine whether the pictures showed

8 Federal Administrative Court, Case No. 2011/24, Judgment, 27 October 2011, paras. 8.1 ff.

CAT/C/83/D/1147/2022

GE.25-20938

5

the complainant, without granting him the right to be heard. The complainant could have

easily proved that the scars were his. In this sense, he produces a report of physical and

psychological examination in accordance with the Manual on the Effective Investigation and

Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

(Istanbul Protocol), dated 3 August 2022.

State Party’s observations on the merits

4.1

On 20 January 2023, the State Party submitted its observations on the merits. It

acknowledges that the human rights situation in Sri Lanka is worrying in many respects but

points out that the occurrence of human rights violations in the complainant’s country of

origin is not, of itself, sufficient to conclude that the complainant is personally at risk of being

tortured there. It reiterates the inconsistencies found by the domestic authorities in the

complainant’s allegations to conclude that the arrests that the complainant claims to have

suffered do not allow the assumption that he would be exposed to a real risk of treatment

contrary to the Convention if he were returned to Sri Lanka.

4.2

The State Party submits that the Federal Administrative Court has already thoroughly

examined the human rights situation in Sri Lanka and the risk of torture in the event of return

in a reference judgment,9 according to which not all returnees with a real or supposed, present

or past link to LTTE necessarily risk persecution. Only persons accused of rekindling ethnic

conflict face such a risk. The same applies to Sri Lankan nationals who have engaged in

political activities in exile. In the present case, the complainant has failed to plausibly argue

that he has attracted the attention of the Sri Lankan authorities. The State Party therefore

considers that there are no concrete indications that the complainant would have a

considerable likelihood of facing measures beyond what is known as a “background check”

if he were returned, namely an interrogation and checks on his activities in Switzerland and

abroad, or that he would be personally at risk of treatment contrary to the Convention.

4.3

As far as the complainant’s medical condition is concerned, the State Party notes that,

while the complainant invokes back pain as a result of the alleged torture and the necessity

of physiotherapy, he does not argue that he would not be able to obtain adequate treatment

in Sri Lanka or that his return to that country would be contrary to the guarantees of the

Convention because of his state of health.

4.4

Regarding the alleged violation of the procedural guarantees of the Convention by

considering that the photographs of scars were not relevant as evidence as the complainant

was not recognizable in them, while he could easily have demonstrated that the scars were

his, the State Party points out that this factor was not decisive for the Federal Administrative

Court in its assessment. The Court considered that the scars were discreet and could easily

be concealed. Since additional evidence on that point was unlikely to alter its assessment,

there was no need for the Court to take further investigative measures in that context. In the

State Party’s opinion, the domestic proceedings were entirely consistent with the procedural

guarantees of the Convention.

Complainant’s comments on the State Party’s observations on the merits

5.1

On 30 March 2023, the complainant submitted comments in which he contested the

State Party’s arguments. As regards the alleged inconsistencies in his statements, he explains

that he did not want to revive the trauma he had suffered by describing what he had lived

through on multiple occasions. The complainant considers that the Swiss authorities did not

seriously investigate the multiple incidents of torture that he had endured, including the scars

and back pain resulting from said incidents, and thus did not give him a chance to prove his

horrific treatment and its intensity.

5.2

The complainant takes note of the fact that the State Party agrees that he will likely

undergo questioning and interrogation upon his arrival in Sri Lanka. From the perspective of

the Sri Lankan authorities, the complainant has connections to LTTE through his brother, has

not been rehabilitated and is returning from a long stay outside of the country after leaving it

against orders. For the complainant, it must be expected that the Sri Lankan authorities would

9 Federal Administrative Court, Case No. E-1866/2015, Judgment, 15 July 2016.

CAT/C/83/D/1147/2022

6

GE.25-20938

easily notice the scars in the context of the interrogation and expected detention, increasing

the risk of mistreatment and of being tortured again. The State Party’s argument that a victim

of torture might hide his scars seems cynical to him.

Issues and proceedings before the Committee

Consideration of admissibility

6.1

Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must

decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has

ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same

matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international

investigation or settlement.

6.2

The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it

shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the

individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that, in the

present case, the State Party has not contested that the complainant has exhausted all available

domestic remedies, nor has it contested the admissibility of the complaint.

6.3

In the absence of any other obstacle to the admissibility of the present communication,

the Committee proceeds with its consideration of the merits of the claims submitted by the

complainant under article 3 of the Convention.

Consideration of the merits

7.1

In accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, the Committee has considered

the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties.

7.2

In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the return of the

complainant to Sri Lanka would constitute a violation of the State Party’s obligation under

article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return (refouler) a person to another State where

there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being

subjected to torture.

7.3

The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that

the complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to

Sri Lanka. In assessing that risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant

considerations, pursuant to article 3 (2) of the Convention, including the existence of a

consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the

Committee recalls that the aim of such determination is to establish whether the individual

concerned would be at a foreseeable, personal, present and real risk of being subjected to

torture in the country to which he or she would be returned. It follows that the existence of a

consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not

as such constitute sufficient reason for determining that a particular person would be in

danger of being subjected to torture on return to that country; additional grounds must be

adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. Moreover,

although past events may be of relevance, the principal question before the Committee is

whether the complainant currently runs a risk of torture if returned to Sri Lanka.10

7.4

The Committee refers to its general comment No. 4 (2017), according to which the

risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion.

Although the risk does not have to be shown to be “highly probable”, the burden of proof

generally falls on the complainant, who must present an arguable case establishing that he or

she faces a foreseeable, real and personal risk. 11 The Committee recalls that it gives

considerable weight to findings of fact made by organs of the State Party concerned, while,

at the same time, it is not bound by such findings and instead has the power, under

10 N.K. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/77/D/989/2020), para. 7.3.

11 See, inter alia, Dadar v. Canada (CAT/C/35/D/258/2004), para. 8.4; and A.R. v. Netherlands

(CAT/C/31/D/203/2002), para. 7.3.

CAT/C/83/D/1147/2022

GE.25-20938

7

article 22 (4) of the Convention, to make a free assessment of the information available to it,

taking into account all the circumstances relevant to each case.12

7.5

In the present case, the Committee notes the complainant’s claims that he would be in

danger of facing treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention if returned to Sri Lanka, as

he would risk detention, acts of torture and ill-treatment because of his perceived connections

to LTTE, including through his brother, particularly given the human rights situation in Sri

Lanka, his Tamil ethnicity and being from the Vanni area, his scars and his absence from the

country. It also notes the complainant’s assertions that he was detained four times,

interrogated and ill-treated and that the Sri Lankan authorities have, since then, been looking

for him. In this regard, the Committee takes note of the documents provided by the

complainant to support his claims – both those submitted to the Swiss authorities and those

that were provided solely to the Committee after the Federal Administrative Court denied the

complainant’s final appeal in the case relating to his asylum application and that were

therefore not submitted to the authorities of the State Party during the asylum proceedings.

7.6

The Committee notes the State Party’s reference to the contradictions that the asylum

authorities had identified in the complainant’s account and their conclusion that the

complainant had failed to plausibly argue that he had attracted the attention of the Sri Lankan

authorities. The Committee notes that the Swiss authorities duly examined the complainant’s

allegations in support of his request for asylum, but revealed some inconsistencies and

expressed doubts as to their credibility.

7.7

In that regard, the State Secretariat for Migration noted that the complainant had given

conflicting declarations as to the number of places of detention and as to the identification of

the agents who had interrogated him and that, in his first interview, he had not mentioned the

reason that had triggered his flight, that is, the order not to leave the area. It also noted that

the complainant had not been able to give a detailed account of his arrests. The Committee

notes that the complainant has not provided a convincing explanation for those discrepancies.

7.8

The Committee notes that the Swiss authorities have not called into question the

allegation that the complainant may have suffered from violence in Sri Lanka. They have,

however, contested the credibility of his claims that his activities with LTTE led to his

persecution by the Sri Lankan authorities and that the trauma he suffered had been caused by

State agents. In that connection, the Committee takes note of the expert opinion delivered

after the complainant’s examination in accordance with the Istanbul Protocol. However, the

Committee notes that that report was commissioned by the complainant only after the Federal

Administrative Court had denied his appeal and was therefore not submitted to the authorities

of the State Party during the asylum proceedings. The Committee also notes that, in the

asylum proceedings, the complainant did not invoke any psychological problems, except for

a sleep disorder, and did not produce a medical report. The complainant does not explain why

he chose to commission an examination in accordance with the Istanbul Protocol only after

the final decision in his asylum proceedings instead of undergoing such an examination

during the asylum proceedings, in order to use the report in support of his allegations.13

7.9

With respect to the argument relating to the worsening of the human rights situation

in Sri Lanka, the Committee recalls that the occurrence of human rights violations in the

complainant’s country of origin is not, of itself, sufficient for it to conclude that the

complainant is personally at risk of being tortured there. The Committee notes that the

complainant had ample opportunity to provide the State Secretariat for Migration and the

Federal Administrative Court with supporting evidence and more information about his

claims during the asylum proceedings. However, it cannot be concluded on the basis of the

evidence provided that the complainant would personally be at risk of facing torture or

inhuman or degrading treatment if he returned to Sri Lanka. Even if it were to accept the

claim that the complainant was subjected to acts of torture and ill-treatment in the past – as

allegedly supported by his physical and psychological examination in accordance with the

Istanbul Protocol – the Committee recalls that the question is whether he remains, at present,

12 General comment No. 4 (2017), paras. 11, 39 and 50.

13 I.A. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/80/D/1106/2021), para. 7.9.

CAT/C/83/D/1147/2022

8

GE.25-20938

at risk of torture in Sri Lanka in the event of his forcible return there.14 The Committee notes

that, according to its established practice, it is normally for the complainant to present an

arguable case.15

7.10

In the present case, the Committee is of the view that the complainant has not provided

credible information suggesting that the Sri Lankan authorities are currently interested in

him. In this sense, it notes that the complainant did not demonstrate before the Swiss asylum

authorities that the alleged violence he had suffered was due to the intervention of State

agents or that the Sri Lankan authorities were currently searching for him. The complainant

also did not demonstrate that his family was currently being persecuted due to his past

activities.

8.

On the basis of the above, and in the light of the material before it, the Committee

considers that the complainant has not provided sufficient evidence to enable it to conclude

that his deportation to his country of origin would expose him to a foreseeable, personal,

present and real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention.

9.

The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the

return of the complainant to Sri Lanka would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the

Convention by the State Party.

14 N.K. v. Switzerland, para. 7.10.

15 See, for example, N.B.-M. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/47/D/347/2008), para. 9.9; C.A.R.M. et al. v.

Canada (CAT/C/38/D/298/2006), para. 8.10; and M.A.K. v. Germany (CAT/C/32/D/214/2002),

para. 13.5.