Australia did not violate Covenant when it deported author to Sri Lanka after assessment of claims

Facts

The author of the communication is S.T., a Tamil national of Sri Lanka. Her father was killed for his reputed links to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), after which she and her family were held in custody of the Sri Lanka Army where she witnessed and experienced torture and sexual abuse and was interrogated about her father. Upon her release, she was told that the army would “come for her again,” and she fled to India. Due to fear regarding her irregular visa status in India, she moved to Australia to join her brother and lodged an application for a protection visa. Her request was denied for lack of credibility. She appealed, sought judicial review, and sought ministerial intervention, but her requests were all denied. Thereafter, a warrant for her arrest was issued in Sri Lanka. Moreover, her brother was granted a protection visa in Australia for claims almost identical to hers. She sought additional ministerial intervention, which was denied. She claims that if the State party were to deport her to Sri Lanka, it would violate her Covenant rights under articles 7 relating to the prohibition against torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and article 9 (1) relating to the right to liberty and security of a person and the right to be free from arbitrary arrest or detention.

Admissibility

The Committee noted that the domestic courts found the author not to be credible based on inconsistencies in her accounts as well as the fact that her account of certain key events was vague and lacking in detail. Moreover, the author put forth new factual information in her communication which she had several opportunities to raise before the domestic authorities. As such, the information before the Committee demonstrated that the State party’s authorities considered all elements available when evaluating the author’s risk and found that she had not met her burden of proof. The Committee could not conclude that the State party’s assessment was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice. Additionally, the author failed to articulate how her removal to Sri Lanka would violate the State party’s non-refoulement obligations. Thus, the author failed to substantiate her claims and her communications were inadmissible.

More information on the case:

— Human Rights Watch - World Report 2007: Sri Lanka