CAT/C/84/D/1174/2023

GE.26-06520 (E) 030626 030626

Committee against Torture

Decision adopted by the Committee under article 22 of the

Convention, concerning communication No. 1174/2023*, **

Communication submitted by:

B.J. (represented by counsel, Vadim Drozdov)

Alleged victim:

The complainant

State Party:

Switzerland

Date of complaint:

15 February 2023 (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 20 February 2023 (not

issued in document form)

Date of adoption of decision:

17 April 2026

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)

Articles of the Convention:

3, 14 and 16

1.1

The complainant is B.J., a national of Sri Lanka born in 1991. He claims that the State

Party would violate his rights under articles 3, 14 and 16 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 20 February 2023, 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 by the Committee.

1.3

On 3 March 2023, the State Party informed the Committee that the complainant had

been deported to Sri Lanka on 15 February 2023.

Factual background

2.1

The complainant is of Tamil ethnicity. After his father’s death in 1997, he had to move

in with a priest and go to a church boarding school due to his family’s financial difficulties.

* 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 González 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/1174/2023

Convention against Torture

and Other Cruel, Inhuman

or Degrading Treatment

or Punishment

Distr.: General

4 June 2026

Original: English

CAT/C/84/D/1174/2023

2

GE.26-06520

During this time, the complainant’s brother-in-law, who was a member of the Liberation

Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), 1 visited him several times. Given that the complainant

accompanied the priest to war zones to bring clothes and food to civilians, his brother-in-law

asked him to gather information about the Criminal Investigation Department officials who

he met in the war zones.2

2.2

In July 2006, a bomb exploded near the complainant’s home. The complainant was

suspected of involvement by soldiers because he was a newcomer in that place and because

his elder brother and sister had previously been forcibly recruited by LTTE.3 On 11 August

2006, the complainant’s brother-in-law disappeared at sea and soldiers began to question him

about it and beat him regularly. The complainant moved to another city, but soldiers also

visited him there and questioned him twice.4

2.3

As the complainant was living with the priest, he was dependent on him. They moved

to different locations together, but the complainant continued to gather information for LTTE.

After the complainant witnessed a shooting in February 2008, in which an LTTE supporter

died, he was visited and questioned at night about the LTTE supporter by Criminal

Investigation Department and army officers. They subsequently visited him several more

times. 5 The complainant then moved with the priest to another city, but he was again

repeatedly contacted by the Criminal Investigation Department.6

2.4

On 14 September 2009, the complainant returned to his hometown, which was under

the control of the Sri Lankan navy. As only registered persons were allowed to live in that

region, the complainant, accompanied by his mother, went to the navy office to register.

However, under suspicion of being an LTTE member, he was detained in a dark room for a

week and repeatedly beaten. The navy then confiscated his identification documents and

made him report to the authorities daily. On 27 November 2009, the complainant was

suspected of having raised an LTTE flag in the village. Navy officials came to his house

during the night and took him to their post. He was detained and subjected to questioning and

beatings. 7 For about a year, the complainant was forced to work for the navy without

payment. He had to check the passes of people going to and coming back from the sea.

2.5

One day, the complainant was playing cricket with five people and one of them

knocked over the “no entry” sign in the navy area. The navy officials took them to the camp,

where they were detained in the same dark cell in which the complainant had been detained

previously. The complainant was deprived of food and water and was beaten. The detention

lasted for about a week. On 10 August 2012, the complainant visited a festival in another

region, even though it was forbidden by the navy. Upon his return, on 17 August 2012, he

was detained incommunicado in an underground dungeon for a week. After his release, he

left Sri Lanka. On 11 September 2012, he travelled to Malaysia, where he lived as a refugee,

registered with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, until

December 2015. In Malaysia, the complainant was beaten and robbed twice, and he was also

arrested by the police as they did not accept his United Nations refugee card as official

identification. On 22 January 2016, the complainant entered Switzerland illegally 8 and

applied for asylum the same day.

2.6

The State Secretariat for Migration interviewed the complainant on 5 February 2016

and 28 August 2017. Due to the post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms that he experienced

during the interviews, the complainant did not disclose that he had assisted LTTE by

transferring information. On 22 March 2018, the State Secretariat requested additional

information from the Swiss Embassy in Sri Lanka. Staff of the Embassy held a meeting with

the complainant’s mother, who denied that her children were LTTE members but confirmed

the participation of the complainant’s brother-in-law in the movement. The complainant’s

1 No further details were provided.

2 For example, the officials’ appearance.

3 No further details were provided.

4 No further details were provided.

5 No further details were provided.

6 No further details were provided.

7 No further details were provided.

8 No further details were provided.

CAT/C/84/D/1174/2023

GE.26-06520

3

mother admitted that the complainant had regularly experienced interrogations and beatings

by the navy, which suspected him of being an LTTE member. On 28 May 2018, the Swiss

Embassy forwarded that information to the State Secretariat. The complainant responded to

that information on 26 July 2018, alleging that his sister and her husband were hiding their

former LTTE membership because of fear of putting the family at risk.

2.7

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

application. It held that his statements were not credible as his descriptions did not correspond

to the results of the Swiss Embassy’s enquiries: although he had stated in the two interviews

that an elder brother and sister had been members of LTTE, the enquiries by the Swiss

Embassy revealed that none of his siblings claimed to have been LTTE members. The State

Secretariat also found that, although the complainant had mentioned being detained several

times during the second interview, he had mentioned only the detention after the flag incident

during the first interview. The State Secretariat considered that there was no evidence to

support the argument that the Sri Lankan army had specifically targeted the complainant

because of his brother-in-law or that his brother-in-law was linked to LTTE. While not

excluding that the complainant might have had experienced harassment from the navy, the

State Secretariat found that, as the island where he was living had been completely controlled

by the navy at that time, the harassment and discrimination might not have been specifically

directed against the complainant, as other persons might have suffered similar harassment

and suspicion of LTTE affiliation. In that connection, the State Secretariat noted that the

complainant had not mentioned the forced labour for the navy during the first interview.

2.8

On 2 April 2020, the complainant appealed, explaining that his mother had concealed

information about the LTTE membership of his brother and sister because she feared for their

safety. It was unrealistic for the authorities to expect his mother to reveal that information to

unknown people – staff of the Swiss Embassy – considering that she lived in an

army-controlled area. In response to the argument of the State Secretariat for Migration that

the ill-treatment by the navy was not targeted at him, the complainant reiterated that he had

been beaten and imprisoned, had suffered serious injuries and had to perform forced labour

for a long time. He added that he had been interrogated in his home village because he had

been away for a long time, which, together with his siblings’ LTTE membership, added to

the grounds of suspecting him of involvement in LTTE. He explained that he had not

mentioned all the detentions during the first interview due to their high number and the brief

duration of the interview.

2.9

On 7 April 2022, the Federal Administrative Court rejected the complainant’s appeal.

It noted various contradictions. The complainant’s reason for leaving the country had been

presented differently in the two interviews: he had first stated that he left because of the

general circumstances and because he had had no job and no prospects, but had declared that

he was not detained after the incident at the end of 2011. However, at the second hearing, he

had declared that the main reason for leaving the country was a one-week detention in an

underground dungeon after his return from a party in August 2012. The Court found it

unlikely that the complainant had had problems because of his two siblings’ alleged former

LTTE membership, but that his siblings had been able to return home after their release

following two years’ imprisonment in camps and to live in Sri Lanka without any problems.

However, the court also called his siblings’ LTTE membership into doubt in view of the

information from the Swiss Embassy, as it had contradicted the mother’s statements,

according to which none of her children had been members of LTTE.

2.10

The Federal Administrative Court noted various contradictions in connection with the

circumstances of the complainant’s return home in 2009. According to the complainant, he

had returned home because of repeated checks by the Criminal Investigation Department and

the continuing allegations that he was connected with LTTE. However, in the information

received from the Swiss Embassy, his mother had stated that she brought the complainant

back home to the village after the war so that he could work and support the family. In

conclusion, the Court agreed with the State Secretariat for Migration that the harassment was

not specifically directed against the complainant, but that many others were equally affected

by such measures as a result of the situation prevailing there at the time. That also applied to

the constant suspicions of LTTE membership. The conceivable general harassment measures

thus lacked asylum relevance due to their lack of targeting. After all, many villagers were

CAT/C/84/D/1174/2023

4

GE.26-06520

subjected to forced labour at that time. In the information provided by the Swiss Embassy,

the mother had stated that there were no longer any problems between the navy and the

villagers. The complainant himself had also stated that checks did not apply only to him.

Furthermore, the allegations of having repeatedly been the victim of targeted acts of

persecution by the army and the police in Sri Lanka were regarded by the Court as largely

implausible in view of the contradictory and factually incorrect descriptions and against the

background of the information from the Embassy.

2.11

On 9 May 2022, the complainant filed a second asylum application, invoking the

human rights situation in Sri Lanka and reiterating his previous reasons for asylum. On

30 May 2022, the State Secretariat for Migration dismissed his new application because no

new facts and evidence had been produced: the complainant had merely repeated his original

claims. On 12 August 2022, the Federal Administrative Court rejected his appeal as the

reports relating to the general situation of Tamils in Sri Lanka had no specific reference to

the complainant.

2.12

On 10 October 2022, the complainant’s mother wrote a letter to the Justice of the

Peace of Jaffna Judicial District and recorded a video explaining that she had concealed the

LTTE membership of the complainant’s brother and sister during the visit of the

representatives of the Swiss Embassy because she had feared that the disclosure would harm

her children, given that she was living in an area controlled by the Sri Lankan army. A

preliminary psychiatric report of 21 October 2022 confirmed that, since the end of

September 2022, the complainant had been receiving psychiatric treatment and undergoing

psychological evaluation of his traumatic experience in Sri Lanka. The doctor suspected that

the complainant suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and a major depressive episode.

2.13

On 29 October 2022, the complainant filed a request for re-examination, explaining

why his mother had concealed information about his siblings’ LTTE membership and

claiming for the first time that he would not have access to the necessary mental health

treatment in Sri Lanka. He invoked existential hardship due to the absence of prospects of a

secure income as a fisher in Sri Lanka, due to the ongoing economic crisis and consequent

lack of income-generating opportunities.

2.14

On 4 November 2022, the State Secretariat for Migration rejected the complainant’s

request, arguing that the letter and video from his mother were purely third-party assertions

with low evidentiary value because any person in Sri Lanka could make such a statement to

a Justice of the Peace or other authorities and organizations and request a copy of it. It held

that the preliminary psychiatric report of 21 October 2022 did not change its previous

conclusion of the non-credibility of the complainant’s claims because, in principle, a medical

certificate could not prove the cause of an alleged mental illness. Nonetheless, the State

Secretariat accepted that the doctor’s diagnosis of possible post-traumatic stress disorder

made credible the fact that the complainant had experienced a traumatizing event. However,

it recalled that not every medically diagnosed manifestation of mental traumatization was

caused by torture. Assessing the credibility of asylum-seekers’ claims was a legal matter and

a task for migration authorities, not for doctors. Lastly, it considered that medical treatment

was available and that economic difficulties in Sri Lanka could not lead to the conclusion

that the complainant would face existential hardship.

2.15

On 22 December 2022, the Federal Administrative Court rejected the complainant’s

appeal. In particular, as to the complainant’s statement that the State Secretariat for Migration

had not waited for the final psychotherapeutic report on his mental health, the Court held that

it was not necessary, as requested by the complainant, to wait for the final report following

further sessions before making the final assessment of the credibility of the allegations

because a psychiatric diagnosis was not in itself proof of alleged ill-treatment or torture. The

fact that the complainant might be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and reported

having been detained and mistreated several times in Sri Lanka could not be used to conclude

that the asylum claims were credible, as the traumatization could have been caused by other

causes that might be irrelevant under asylum law, such as traumatizing events after leaving

Sri Lanka.

2.16

On 18 January 2023, the complainant was placed in detention pending deportation,

after being arrested for working illegally. On 19 January 2023, he filed a new request for

CAT/C/84/D/1174/2023

GE.26-06520

5

re-examination, submitting the final psychiatric report, which had been issued on 18 January

2023. The doctor had concluded that it was highly probable that the post-traumatic stress

disorder could be traced back to the described detentions and mistreatment, and had assumed

that the manifestation of symptoms already existed at the time of the asylum hearing. The

report also mentioned that, during the interviews, the complainant had disclosed for the first

time that he had directly supported LTTE. The complainant submitted that, as a person

risking acute self-endangerment and suicidal acts in case of removal, he would be unable to

receive the necessary psychiatric treatment in Sri Lanka. Lastly, he insisted that he had no

prospect of earning a secure income as a fisher due to the devastating impact of the Sri Lankan

economic crisis on the standard of living.

2.17

On 23 January 2023, the State Secretariat for Migration dismissed his request for

re-examination, without the possibility of lodging an appeal. It recalled that it had been

explained in detail in the decision of 4 November 2022 of the State Secretariat and in the

judgment of 22 December 2022 of the Federal Administrative Court that a medical report

might not change the credibility of an asylum application, and that it was therefore

unnecessary to wait for the final report. The State Secretariat noted that the complainant had

not addressed those statements by the asylum authorities in his submission of 19 January

2023, hence failing to justify why the above-mentioned statements would be incorrect and

why the newly submitted therapy report would lead to a new assessment of the factual

situation, contrary to the anticipatory assessment of evidence in the statements. The content

of his submission was therefore obviously unfounded.

2.18

On 30 January 2023, the complainant filed a request for revision of the judgment of

22 December 2022, claiming that the Federal Administrative Court had failed to assess his

prospects of a secure income in Sri Lanka as a fisher in the light of the ongoing economic

crisis. He also invoked new significant facts following that judgment: his diagnosis of

post-traumatic stress disorder and his connections with LTTE that he had revealed to his

psychiatrist.

2.19

In an interim decision of 3 February 2023, the Federal Administrative Court

considered that the request for revision lacked the prospect of success and denied, due to lack

of merit, the complainant’s requests to suspend the deportation and for free legal aid. It set a

deadline for the complainant to pay 1,500 Swiss francs to cover legal costs. On 15 February

2023, the complainant was deported to Sri Lanka. On 27 February 2023, the Federal

Administrative Court declared the complainant’s request for revision inadmissible.

2.20

After his return to Sri Lanka, the complainant contacted the Swiss Embassy in

Colombo in person on 21 February 2023 and in writing on 22 February 2023, requesting that

it issue him a visa to return to Switzerland, given his communication to the Committee. The

complainant did not report any problems following his return or any threats of future

problems. The Swiss Embassy informed him that the standard visa requirements applied to

him and that he could make the request in writing. He has not contacted the Swiss Embassy

again since 22 February 2023.9

Complaint

3.1

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

of his rights under articles 3, 14 and 16 of the Convention. He has direct and familial

connection with LTTE, but the State Party authorities failed to assess the risk in a manner

prescribed by article 3 of the Convention because they did not consider his diagnosis of

post-traumatic stress disorder and did not assess the new information about his direct

assistance to LTTE. He also claims that he would have no access to the appropriate mental

health treatment and a minimum essential standard of living in Sri Lanka, which is necessary

for his rehabilitation as a victim of torture, in violation of articles 14 and 16 of the

Convention.

3.2

The complainant points to the fact that he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder

as a result of his torture in Sri Lanka. He submits that the State Party authorities did not

dispute that he had experienced problems with the navy upon his return to his home village,

9 Information provided by the State Party on 3 March 2023.

CAT/C/84/D/1174/2023

6

GE.26-06520

as confirmed by his mother’s statements to the Swiss Embassy. His mother also informed the

Embassy that he had regularly been beaten and interrogated by the navy and was suspected

of being an LTTE member. Considering the ongoing heavy militarization of the north of Sri

Lanka, where he comes from, the complainant contends that he will again come to the

attention of the security forces after being away from the country for more than 10 years and

suspected of having links with LTTE. He recalls that his links with LTTE and his absence

from his home village were also the cause of his past torture in Sri Lanka.

3.3

The complainant contends that he was deprived of an appellate remedy, which could

offer review in the light of the final psychiatric report and new information about his LTTE

activities. During the third asylum procedure, the report of 18 January 2023 was not yet ready,

but when the complainant brought the report to the attention of the State Secretariat for

Migration during the fourth asylum procedure, he was unable to file an appeal to the Federal

Administrative Court. During the last asylum procedure, the Federal Administrative Court

deprived the complainant of the opportunity to have his request reviewed by judges on the

merits and demonstrate his risk on the basis of psychological evidence and new information

about his direct assistance to LTTE because he was obliged to pay an advance on costs,

despite his indigence, and because the suspensive effect of his request had been lifted.10

3.4

The complainant invokes a risk of being subjected to ill-treatment in Sri Lanka due to

the lack of full rehabilitation for him as a victim of torture. It is manifested in the lack of

specialized psychiatric treatment, coupled with the absence of means of subsistence for him

as a fisher, considering the ongoing economic crisis, which amounts to a violation of articles

14 and 16 of the Convention.

3.5

Lastly, the complainant claims that his deportation before the Committee’s decision

on his request for interim measures, despite the State Party authorities’ awareness of his

complaint, did not afford him the effective exercise of his right to complain under article 22

of the Convention. His counsel recalls that he sent the communication to the Committee on

15 February 2023 at 8 p.m., while the complainant was at the airport, accompanied by the

police. Although the counsel sent emails to the authorities in charge of the deportation at

8.29 p.m., 8.54 p.m. and 9.02 p.m., informing them of the communication to the Committee

and requesting a stay of deportation pending the Committee’s decision on interim measures,

the complainant was deported at 10 p.m.

State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits

4.1

On 22 August 2023, the State Party submitted its observations. It considers that the

complainant’s allegations under articles 14 and 16 of the Convention are not independent,

but form part of his allegations in support of his complaint of a violation of article 3 of the

Convention. It submits that the complainant has not demonstrated that the facts presented

raise separate issues under articles 14 and 16 of the Convention and that the allegations of

violations of articles 14 and 16 of the Convention should therefore be declared inadmissible.11

4.2

On the merits, the State Party reiterates the arguments made by the asylum authorities.

It acknowledges that the human rights situation in Sri Lanka is worrying in many respects,12

but points out that the Federal Administrative Court has already thoroughly examined that

situation and the risk of torture in the event of return in a reference judgment,13 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 attracted the attention of the

Sri Lankan authorities. In particular, he has not demonstrated that he was persecuted for

alleged LTTE connections or that his siblings had LTTE connections.

4.3

As to the complainant’s allegation that the migration authorities of the State Party did

not sufficiently examine the psychiatric report of 18 January 2023, the State Party reiterates

10 B.T.M. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/75/D/972/2019), para. 8.7.

11 R.K. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/75/D/951/2019), para. 6.5.

12 See CAT/C/LKA/CO/5.

13 No. E-1866/2015, 15 July 2016.

CAT/C/84/D/1174/2023

GE.26-06520

7

the findings of domestic authorities that the relevance of the report was examined. It recalls

that the psychiatric report identified the causes of the post-traumatic stress disorder on the

basis of the complainant’s declarations. Moreover, the domestic authorities duly assessed the

complainant’s state of health, his personal circumstances upon return, his financial situation

and the medical reports included in the file.

4.4

As far as the complainant’s medical condition is concerned, the State Party does not

contest that he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, but considers that no conclusions

can be drawn regarding the causes of this condition, since the complainant’s claims on this

matter are not credible. The State Party argues that his mental health issues can be treated in

the Northern Province, particularly in Jaffna, where Jaffna Teaching Hospital has a

psychiatry department headed by two psychiatrists and clinical psychologists. These

psychiatrists also work on an ad hoc basis at local hospitals in Chavakacheri and Point Pedro.

4.5

Regarding the alleged violation of article 22 of the Convention, the State Party recalls

that the complainant was deported on 15 February 2023, that is, before the Committee

transmitted the request for interim measures, on 20 February 2023. Moreover, as he was in

regular contact with his counsel, the complainant could not have been unaware of the risk of

the removal order being enforced following the final rejection of his second asylum

application by the Federal Administrative Court, on 12 August 2022, and the final rejection,

by the Federal Administrative Court in its ruling of 20 December 2022, of his request for

reconsideration dated 29 October 2022. Furthermore, the complainant was placed in

detention on 18 January 2023, and the suspensive effect of his revision proceedings was

denied by the interim order of 3 February 2023. Therefore, contrary to his claims, the

complainant was not prevented from effectively exercising his right to submit a

communication, in accordance with article 22 of the Convention.

Complainant’s comments on the State Party’s observations on admissibility and the

merits

5.1

On 5 May 2025, the complainant submitted comments in which he contested the State

Party’s arguments. He declares that his arguments under articles 14 and 16 of the Convention

constitute different issues in comparison with his claims under article 3,14 although they are

interdependent in his communication. His claim under article 3 referred to his risk of being

subjected to prohibited treatment in Sri Lanka due to his LTTE links and past torture, while

the claim under articles 14 and 16 concerned the lack of rehabilitation as a victim of torture,

resulting in ill-treatment.

5.2

On the merits, the complainant insists that the State Party migration authorities

disregarded his preliminary psychiatric report and failed to await the final psychiatric

assessment during the third asylum procedure. This led to speculation about other reasons for

his suspected mental health disorder. Subsequently, they arbitrarily disregarded the final

psychiatric report, which is contrary to the Manual on the Effective Investigation and

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

(Istanbul Protocol) and the Committee’s jurisprudence. According to the complainant, the

doctor’s conclusion, in his final medical assessment, that it was highly probable that the

post-traumatic stress disorder could be traced back to the described detentions and

mistreatment of the complainant should have led the State Party authorities to investigate the

complainant’s risk more thoroughly, instead of disregarding the evidence in question.

5.3

As regards the alleged inconsistencies in his statements, the complainant points out

that the final psychiatric report of 18 January 2023 shows that he suffered from post-traumatic

stress disorder symptoms, which include erratic thinking and difficulties in reconstructing

dates and sequences of traumatic events, during his asylum interviews. By disregarding this,

the State Party failed to adapt the credibility assessment process in the light of his diagnosis.

5.4

Lastly, the complainant reiterates his arguments concerning his lack of subsistence

opportunities, which complicates his access to medical care. Although the Federal

Administrative Court recognized his former occupation as a fisher, the State Party authorities

14 K.R. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/76/D/1018/2020), paras. 6.10–6.13.

CAT/C/84/D/1174/2023

8

GE.26-06520

never assessed the impact of the economic crisis through the lens of his individual

circumstances and made general references to the situation in Sri Lanka.

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 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 the fact that the complainant has exhausted all available

domestic remedies. 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 State Party’s plea of inadmissibility for the alleged

violations of articles 14 and 16 of the Convention on the ground that the complainant has not

demonstrated that the facts presented raise separate issues under those articles. The

complainant responds that he had produced sufficient evidence to show that his forced return

to Sri Lanka would constitute a violation of articles 3, 14 and 16 of the Convention.

6.4

The Committee observes that the goal of the complainant in submitting the present

complaint is to avoid being deported to Sri Lanka and that, to this end, he claims that the

State Party would be in breach of its obligations under article 3 of the Convention if

deportation took place. The Committee considers that the complainant’s claims under

articles 14 and 16 of the Convention are not autonomous claims but rather ones forming part

of his allegations regarding his personal situation in support of his claim under article 3.15 It

is of the view that the complainant has not demonstrated that the facts that he has presented

raise separate issues under articles 14 and 16 and proceeds to consider the allegations under

article 3 of the Convention.16

6.5

The Committee notes the State Party’s argument that the evidence produced has

already been examined by the domestic authorities. The Committee 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.17 The Committee gives considerable weight to findings of fact made by organs of the

State Party concerned; 18 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.19

6.6

In the present case, the Committee observes that the State Party’s immigration and

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

and considered that some aspects of his account were not credible, that he did not have a

political profile of interest to the Sri Lankan authorities and that the state of his mental health

– in particular his post-traumatic stress disorder – did not preclude his removal to Sri Lanka,

where he would have access to adequate medical care. On this basis, the authorities concluded

15 Harun v. Switzerland (CAT/C/65/D/758/2016), para. 8.3.

16 R.K. v. Switzerland, para. 6.5.

17 G.K. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/30/D/219/2002), para. 6.12; S.K. v. Australia (CAT/C/73/D/968/2019),

para. 12.5; and Z.S. v. Georgia (CAT/C/70/D/915/2019), para. 7.4.

18 T.D. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/46/D/375/2009), para. 7.7; and Alp v. Denmark (CAT/C/52/D/466/2011),

para. 8.3.

19 I.E. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/62/D/683/2015), para. 7.4. See also general comment No. 4 (2017),

para. 50.

CAT/C/84/D/1174/2023

GE.26-06520

9

that the complainant had not established the existence of substantial grounds to show that he

would face a foreseeable, personal, present and real risk of being tortured if returned to Sri

Lanka.

6.7

The Committee notes that the complainant contests the State Party’s assessment of his

credibility and of the evidence and medical reports he produced. However, the Committee

observes that the complainant provided no evidence to substantiate his assertions and that the

authorities of the State Party found, after a thorough assessment of all the facts and evidence

presented at different levels of jurisdiction and in several sets of proceedings, that the

complainant had not provided sufficient evidence that he ran a foreseeable, personal, present

and real risk of being tortured if returned to Sri Lanka or that he would not have access to

appropriate healthcare. Therefore, the Committee finds that the complainant has not

established that the domestic evaluation of the facts and evidence concerning his alleged risk

of treatment contrary to the Convention upon return to Sri Lanka suffered from any defects.20

6.8

Lastly, the Committee notes that the complainant was deported to Sri Lanka on

15 February 2023, that is, before it requested the State Party not to deport the complainant to

Sri Lanka, on 20 February 2023. The Committee also notes that neither the complainant nor

his counsel have produced any information or evidence concerning the complainant’s current

situation in Sri Lanka. The counsel also does not mention that he would be unable to do so.

6.9

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, personal, present and

real. The Committee also 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 not be manifestly unfounded.21

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 his claims sufficiently

for the purpose of admissibility.22

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.

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

21 Z v. Denmark (CAT/C/55/D/555/2013), para. 6.3; and K.A. et al. v. Sweden (CAT/C/39/D/308/2006),

para. 7.2.

22 S.K. v. Australia, para. 12.6.