CAT/C/84/D/1162/2022

GE.26-06462 (E) 190526 200526

Committee against Torture

Decision adopted by the Committee under article 22 of the

Convention, concerning communication No. 1162/2022*, **

Communication submitted by:

S.U. (represented by Migrant Arc-en-ciel)

Alleged victim:

The complainant

State Party:

Switzerland

Date of complaint:

7 December 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 December 2022 (not

issued in document form)

Date of adoption of decision:

17 April 2026

Subject matter:

Deportation to Sri Lanka

Procedural issues:

None

Substantive issue:

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 S.U., a national of Sri Lanka born in 1995. She applied for asylum

in Switzerland, but her application was rejected. She is facing deportation to Sri Lanka and

submits that her deportation would constitute a violation by the State Party of article 3 of the

Convention. The State Party made the declaration under article 22 (1) of the Convention on

2 December 1986. The complainant is represented by counsel.

1.2

On 16 December 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 22 December 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 remove the complainant, who was

therefore assured of remaining in Switzerland pending the consideration of her complaint by

the Committee.

* Adopted by the Committee at its eighty-fourth session (13 April–1 May 2026).

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

Jorge Contesse, Lorena Gonzáles Pinto, Claude Heller, Erdogan Iscan, Peter Vedel Kessing,

Liu Huawen, Maeda Naoko, Moulaye Abdallah Moulaye Abdallah, Ana Racu and

Abderrazak Rouwane.

United Nations

CAT/C/84/D/1162/2022

Convention against Torture

and Other Cruel, Inhuman

or Degrading Treatment

or Punishment

Distr.: General

12 May 2026

English

Original: French

CAT/C/84/D/1162/2022

2

GE.26-06462

Factual background

2.1

The complainant is of Tamil origin. She arrived in Switzerland on 31 March 2018,

with a visa, and applied for asylum on 3 May 2018. She attended an interview regarding her

personal details on 22 May 2018 and a substantive interview on 8 August 2019.

2.2

In support of her application, the complainant stated that she had come to Switzerland

to see her father, who had been admitted to hospital with serious health problems. He had

been a member of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and had been granted asylum in

Switzerland, but he died the day before the complainant left Sri Lanka. No one in his home

country knew that he had been member of the movement. Around the time of his funeral in

Switzerland, reports about him emerged in Sri Lanka, including in the Tamil media and a

Sinhala newspaper. A memorial service was also held at Jaffna, Sri Lanka. The Liberation

Tigers of Tamil Eelam awarded him an honorary title as a token of gratitude. As the Sri

Lankan authorities now know that her father was active in the movement, the complainant

fears persecution if she should return. In addition, in Sri Lanka she was subjected to

prolonged harassment by a young man who had tried to force her to marry him. After her

departure, unknown persons came looking for her at the residence she had lived in in

Colombo. 1 During her interview with the State Secretariat for Migration, and in her

complaint, she submitted, among other things, photographs of her father and his funeral,

copies of newspaper articles and articles published on websites and links to videos on

YouTube.

2.3

On 14 October 2020, the State Secretariat for Migration rejected the complainant’s

application and ordered her deportation from Switzerland. It concluded that she had never

been active in the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka and that simply being related

to her father and attending his funeral did not constitute credible evidence of persecution, by

reason of association with him, that would justify her flight. Furthermore, the complainant

lived in Sri Lanka for several years after her father’s departure. During that time, she had

been able to enter and exit the country legally on several occasions and had attended a number

of university courses in Colombo. The State Secretariat also considered that the harassment

by a young man was not relevant in itself.

2.4

On 31 August 2021, the Federal Administrative Court dismissed the complainant’s

appeal. The Court held that neither the appeal nor the evidence presented were sufficient to

cast doubt upon the conclusions of the State Secretariat for Migration. It noted, in particular,

that the complainant’s father had never had any trouble with the Sri Lankan authorities before

his departure. Regarding the risk to which the complainant would be exposed as a rejected

asylum-seeker of Tamil origin in the event of her return, the Court noted that she had been

living in the Colombo region since 2002 and that she did not present any individual risk

factors.

2.5

On 9 November 2021, the complainant submitted a second asylum application, in

which she explained that her husband was living in Norway under a false identity and was

actually the illegitimate son of a high-ranking Sri Lankan official in the general staff of the

Ministry of Defence. The Sri Lankan authorities regard the complainant’s marriage to this

man as an attempt on her part or on the part of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam – since

her father was a member – to obtain important official information in order to revive the

movement. Owing to this situation, the complainant has initiated divorce proceedings in

Switzerland and is suffering from depression and suicidal thoughts.

2.6

On 9 December 2021, the State Secretariat for Migration rejected the complainant’s

second asylum application because the file contained no credible evidence of the alleged

family ties between her husband and the aforementioned high-ranking official in the general

staff. Nor did the complainant provide any evidence to support the claim that her husband

was living in Norway under a false identity. In addition, the claims were considered to have

been made after the divorce proceedings had been initiated. The State Secretariat added that

the complainant did not present any other risk factors recognized in the case law of the

Federal Administrative Court. It found that her deportation would be lawful, reasonable and

practical, especially since her health problems could be treated in Sri Lanka. The Federal

1 No further details are provided.

CAT/C/84/D/1162/2022

GE.26-06462

3

Administrative Court issued an interim ruling on 31 January 2022 in which it noted that the

complainant did not present any relevant risk factors, and subsequently dismissed the appeal

lodged by the complainant, represented by counsel.

2.7

On 4 April 2022, the complainant filed a third asylum application, in which she

explained that she had been involved in numerous political activities during her exile in

Switzerland. On 22 March 2022, at the forty-ninth session of the Human Rights Council in

Geneva, she delivered a video statement in which she condemned human rights violations

committed against Tamils. This speech was recorded on video and featured in an article in a

Sri Lankan daily newspaper, in which her name and photograph appeared. Owing to these

political activities in exile, the complainant claims that she would be at risk in Sri Lanka.

Furthermore, as a divorced woman, she would be stigmatized there.

2.8

On 9 August 2022, the State Secretariat for Migration rejected the complainant’s

asylum application. It considered that her political activities in exile, insofar as they could be

attributed to her, were of low intensity. In particular, it studied two YouTube videos

published on 12 March 2022, which the complainant had produced to illustrate her activism

in the Place des Nations in Geneva. It noted that the videos had garnered 36 and 58 views,

respectively, and therefore did not have significant reach. Furthermore, the videos did not

reveal any behaviour that was particularly likely to attract the attention of the authorities of

her country of origin, given that the complainant was only seen talking to passers-by. The

State Secretariat also considered that the complainant’s remarks at the Human Rights Council

did not constitute a direct criticism of the Sri Lankan regime that was likely to attract the

attention of the authorities. The complainant was therefore unlikely to find herself in the

sights of the Sri Lankan authorities, especially since her reasons for fleeing had already been

examined several times by the State Secretariat for Migration and the Federal Administrative

Court, and had been deemed implausible or treated as such. Furthermore, she failed to explain

why she had not put forward this argument in the previous proceedings.

2.9

On 14 November 2022, the Federal Administrative Court dismissed the complainant’s

appeal. The Court ruled that the evidence in the case file did not allow it to establish that the

complainant’s profile was such that she was particularly exposed and likely to be in the sights

of her country’s authorities in a way that would be decisive according to the criteria of the

Asylum Act. In particular, the Court ruled that the brevity and content of her filmed speech

before the Human Rights Council, lasting approximately one and a half minutes, was such

that even if the speech had come to the attention of the Sri Lankan authorities, as she claims,

it was unlikely to expose her to serious reprisals comparable to persecution within the

meaning of the Asylum Act.

2.10

As for the two videos illustrating the complainant’s activism in the Place des Nations

in Geneva, the Federal Administrative Court noted that she appeared only to be talking to

passers-by and ruled that such behaviour was no different from that of many other members

of the Tamil diaspora in Switzerland during similar demonstrations, and did not prove that

she had a particularly high profile that could place her in serious danger in the event of her

deportation to Sri Lanka. Furthermore, the relatively scant publicity attracted by the two

videos – viewed approximately 40 and 60 times between 12 March and 8 November 2022 –

supported the Court’s analysis that the complainant’s engagement was not comparable to that

of a major opposition figure. Under the circumstances, the Court considered it highly unlikely

that the Sri Lankan authorities were aware of the content of these videos.

2.11

The Federal Administrative Court also noted that, although a newspaper article of

3 March 2022 reported on the complainant’s participation in an awareness campaign

conducted by the Tamil community in Switzerland, there was nothing in the case file to

suggest that this had brought her special recognition. A new public speech, given by

complainant at the United Nations Office at Geneva on 12 September 2022 – the precise

nature of which was not explained – did not, in the Court’s view, disprove its assessment that

her profile as an activist was fundamentally no different to that of many other Tamils in

Switzerland. In any event, notwithstanding the reference to an online article about the speech,

the Court ruled that there was no convincing evidence that the Sri Lankan authorities had

taken note of the complainant’s intervention of 12 September 2022 or that they would take

an interest in a news item on the subject, let alone that they had identified the complainant

and now intended to target her for that reason.

CAT/C/84/D/1162/2022

4

GE.26-06462

2.12

Finally, the Federal Administrative Court ruled that the unsubstantiated statement that

the complainant was “receiving medical treatment in Switzerland” and the reference to

various journalistic reports of a general and abstract nature, relating mainly to the situation

in Sri Lanka, did not establish to the satisfaction of the law the existence of absolute

impediments to the complainant’s deportation.

Complaint

3.1

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

of her rights under article 3 of the Convention. She requests the Committee to determine

whether she would be at risk in the event of her deportation, owing to all the political

activities she has engaged in openly in Switzerland, and given that in Sri Lanka it is forbidden

to campaign against the Tamil genocide. She states that she is committed to the defence of

human rights in Switzerland.

3.2

The complainant cites the political situation in Sri Lanka and refers to press articles

in which it is reported that Tamils returning from abroad have been arrested at the airport.

She also cites surveillance of the diaspora by the Sri Lankan authorities.2

State Party’s observations on the merits

4.1

On 12 June 2023, the State Party submitted its observations on the merits, reiterating

the arguments made by the Swiss asylum authorities. It acknowledges that the human rights

situation in Sri Lanka is worrying in many respects but points out that this situation and the

risk of being subjected to torture in the event of return have already been thoroughly assessed

by the Federal Administrative Court in a reference judgment.3 According to this judgment,

not all returnees with a real or supposed present or past link to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil

Eelam are necessarily at risk of 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, it emerged in the course of domestic

proceedings that the complainant is not a person whose particular profile has attracted, or is

likely in the future to attract, the attention of the Sri Lankan authorities. Furthermore, the

complainant has not claimed, either before the Committee or the national authorities, that she

was tortured prior to leaving Sri Lanka.

4.2

With regard to the complainant’s political activities in Switzerland, there is

insufficient evidence to conclude that she belongs to the category of persons who, on account

of their activities or functions in exile, may have come to the attention of the Sri Lankan

security authorities as serious opponents and potential threats to the regime. Overall, her

political engagement does not go beyond the typical political protests of Sri Lankans of Tamil

origin in exile. The complainant therefore does not appear to be a prominent figure in the

political scene in exile; nor do the nature and extent of her activities mark her out as a

particularly committed and exposed opponent of the regime who could be faulted for her

advocacy of Tamil separatism.

4.3

The State Party acknowledges that the Sri Lankan authorities take some interest in the

political activities of Sri Lankan nationals in exile. However, it is understood that this

surveillance focuses on individuals whose political activities distinguish them from the bulk

of Sri Lankan citizens critical of the regime and who are seen as a serious threat to the Sri

Lankan State. The decisive factor in being distinguished thus is not primarily the fact of being

visually recognizable and individually identifiable, but a public prominence which, as a result

of the person’s personality, appearance and the content of his or her public statements, gives

the impression of posing a threat to Sri Lankan political system. This is not the case of the

complainant, who, during the first asylum procedure, stated that she was not interested in

politics and was not politically active in Switzerland.

2 Swiss Refugee Council, “Sri Lanka : situation politique actuelle, surveillance de la diaspora, collecte

de fonds à l’étranger pour les victimes de la guerre”, 10 April 2020, pp. 8–12.

3 Federal Administrative Court, judgment E-1866/2015, 15 July 2016.

CAT/C/84/D/1162/2022

GE.26-06462

5

4.4

In view of all the circumstances of the case, there is nothing to suggest that the

complainant may be perceived by the Sri Lankan authorities as belonging to the small group

of individuals who seek to revive Tamil separatism and thus pose a risk to the Sri Lankan

State.4

Complainant’s comments on the State Party’s observations

5.1

On 30 August and 19 December 2023, the complainant submitted comments in which

she contested the State Party’s arguments. To prove the validity of her fears in the event of

her return to Sri Lanka, she submits that her father had been a renowned electrical engineer

and teacher who had been active within the movement of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil

Eelam and that it was for this reason that the State Party had recognized him as a refugee and

granted him asylum.

5.2

The complainant refers again to the human rights situation in Sri Lanka and claims

that, because of her political activities in exile, she would be exposed to the risk of treatment

contrary to article 3 of the Convention in the event of her return. She also reports new political

activities: as a human rights defender, she gave a speech on 26 September 2023 at Zurich5 in

which she criticized human rights violations in her country; and she participated as treasurer

and fundraiser of an event organized on 27 November 2023 in Basel to mark the national

heroes’ day of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Photographs of the complainant were

published in the newspapers.

5.3

In the light of all the activities she has carried out in Switzerland, and of her

publications and functions, the complainant considers that she should be regarded as a

prominent figure in the political scene in exile and that the nature and extent of her political

activities in exile mark her out as a particularly committed and exposed opponent of the

regime who could be faulted for her advocacy of Tamil separatism.

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

In accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, the Committee may 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. The Committee therefore

finds that it is not precluded from considering the communication under article 22 (5) (b) of

the Convention.

6.3

The Committee notes the complainant’s claim that by deporting her to Sri Lanka, the

State Party would violate her rights under article 3 of the Convention. The Committee recalls

that, for a claim to be admissible under article 22 of the Convention and rule 113 (b) of its

rules of procedure, it must, inter alia, rise to the basic level of substantiation required for

purposes of admissibility.6 In cases involving refoulement, complainants must present an

arguable case by submitting substantiated arguments to demonstrate that the danger of being

subjected to torture upon removal is foreseeable, present, personal and real.7 In other words,

they must establish a prima facie case by providing evidence that rises to the basic level of

substantiation to support their claims.8

4 K.R. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/76/D/1018/2020), para. 6.8.

5 The complainant states that, on 23 September each year, Tamils honour the memory of two members

of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.

6 Y.H. v. Sweden (CAT/C/76/D/979/2020), para. 7.4.

7 Committee against Torture, general comment No. 4 (2017), para. 38.

8 S.S. v. Australia (CAT/C/74/D/935/2019), para. 7.6.

CAT/C/84/D/1162/2022

6

GE.26-06462

6.4

The Committee also recalls that it is for the organs of the States Parties to the

Convention, and not for the Committee, to evaluate the facts and evidence in a particular

case, unless it can be ascertained that the manner in which such facts and evidence were

evaluated was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.9 The Committee gives

considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by organs of the State Party concerned;10

however, it is not bound by such findings. It follows that the Committee will make a free

assessment of the information available to it in accordance with article 22 (4) of the

Convention, taking into account all the circumstances relevant to each case.11

6.5

In the present case, the Committee notes that the State Party’s immigration services

and judicial authorities thoroughly examined the facts and evidence presented by the

complainant over the course of three asylum proceedings and found that she did not have a

political profile likely to attract the attention of the Sri Lankan authorities. On this basis, the

Swiss authorities concluded that the complainant had not established the existence of

substantial grounds for believing that she would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of

being tortured if returned to Sri Lanka.

6.6

The Committee notes that the complainant disputes the risk assessment made by the

State Party’s authorities and their conclusion that she did not provide sufficient evidence to

show that she had a particular political risk profile that had attracted or could attract the

attention of the Sri Lankan authorities and therefore faced a foreseeable, real and personal

risk of being tortured if returned to Sri Lanka. The Committee finds that the communication

does not establish that the domestic evaluation of the facts and evidence concerning the

complainant’s alleged risk of treatment contrary to the Convention upon return to Sri Lanka

suffered from any defects.12

6.7

The Committee recalls its earlier decisions in which it found claims to be manifestly

unfounded where the author of a communication failed to submit substantiated arguments

showing that the danger of being subjected to torture was foreseeable, present, personal and

real. In the light of the above, and in the absence of any further relevant information, the

Committee concludes that the complainant has failed to substantiate her claims sufficiently

for the purpose of admissibility.13

7.

The Committee therefore decides:

(a)

That the communication is inadmissible under article 22 (2) of the Convention;

(b)

That the present decision shall be communicated to the complainant and to the

State Party.

9 G.K. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/30/D/219/2002), para. 6.12; Z.S. v. Georgia (CAT/C/70/D/915/2019),

para. 7.4; and S.K. v. Australia (CAT/C/73/D/968/2019), para. 12.5.

10 T.D. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/46/D/375/2009), para. 8.7; and Alp v. Denmark (CAT/C/52/D/466/2011),

para. 8.3.

11 I.E. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/62/D/683/2015), para. 7.4. See also Committee against Torture, general

comment No. 4 (2017), para. 50.

12 S.K. v. Australia, para. 12.5.

13 Ibid., para. 12.6.