Deportation of a former LTTE member to Sri Lanka despite alleged risk of persecution

Facts

The author, V.K., a Sri Lankan national of Tamil ethnicity, arrived in Australia by boat in 2012 and applied for a protection visa in 2013. He claimed that as a medical practitioner who had treated Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) members and had a brother in a high-ranking LTTE position, he would face torture, arbitrary detention, and possible death if returned to Sri Lanka. His application was rejected on 18 March 2014, with authorities deeming his claims inconsistent and lacking credibility. In 2015, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal upheld the rejection on appeal, concluding that he had exaggerated his involvement with LTTE and that the Sri Lankan authorities had no interest in him. His subsequent appeals to the Federal Circuit Court and the Federal Court of Australia were dismissed in 2016 and 2017, respectively. Throughout the proceedings, the author changed his claims multiple times—first stating he was an LTTE affiliate, then an LTTE member, and later a high-level cadre who worked as an LTTE medic in a hospital and on the front lines, where he allegedly sustained injuries.

The author alleges violations of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, arguing that his deportation would expose him to a real and personal risk of torture, ill-treatment, or extrajudicial killing by Sri Lankan authorities due to his perceived LTTE affiliation. In his submission, the author presented new evidence of his LTTE involvement, including a photograph of him receiving an award from LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran. He further claimed that since his departure from the country, Sri Lankan authorities had monitored and questioned his family and had even issued an arrest warrant in his name. In 2018, the Committee requested interim measures to halt the author’s deportation while reviewing his case. The State party twice requested the lifting of these measures, asserting that the author’s claims had already been thoroughly assessed and found not credible.

Admissibility

The Committee found the communication inadmissible under article  2 of the Optional Protocol, concluding that the author had failed to substantiate his claim that he would face a real and personal risk of irreparable harm if deported. It noted that Australian authorities had conducted a comprehensive assessment of his case, reviewing his LTTE claims, the credibility of his statements, and general country conditions in Sri Lanka. It considered that his LTTE involvement was raised late in proceedings and that his account contained major inconsistencies. It also found no evidence that Sri Lankan authorities had ever detained or questioned him, or that he had previously been at risk despite having returned to Sri Lanka multiple times before 2012.

The Committee did recall its General Comment No. 31 (2004), stating that States must not remove individuals to a country where they face a real risk of irreparable harm under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. However, in this case, it found that, while the author disagreed with the State party’s findings, he had not demonstrated that the domestic proceedings were arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. Therefore, his claims were deemed insufficiently substantiated and inadmissible.