Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Art. 3 (in case of expulsion to Sri Lanka)

Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicants were born in GPE in DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE respectively . Currently the applicant husband lives in GPE and the applicant wife lives with the children in an asylum centre in GPE .

It appears that the applicants married on DATE in northern GPE .

It also appears that they left GPE separately for GPE . It is not known exactly when . The applicant husband was in possession of a valid passport with a study visa inserted . The applicant wife was in possession of a valid passport . Reunited , the applicants went to GPE and thereafter to GPE , where they were granted asylum in DATE . CARDINAL children were born to them there . In DATE the applicants attempted to apply for asylum in GPE , but apparently , before a decision was taken , they returned voluntarily to GPE . There , at some unknown time , they were issued with NORP aliens ' passports .

On DATE the applicants entered GPE , where the applicant wife 's sister and cousin lived . Since they were in possession of NORP aliens ' passports they could enter GPE without a visa . On DATE under section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW ( udlændingeloven ) they applied for work and residence permits which they were refused on DATE . The applicants were ordered to leave the country before DATE .

On DATE the applicants requested asylum .

In support thereof , on CARDINAL and DATE , the applicant wife stated that she and her parents had moved around a lot within GPE and had lived both in northern and central GPE and in GPE . The applicant wife went to school for DATE after which she worked as a pre - school teacher . Her family was under surveillance by the police because her father and sister were involved with ORG ( NORP ) . The applicant had also been a member of and worked for the NORP for DATE , when she lived in the north . She told the ORG that she was unable to take part in their training because she had asthma . They demanded that she work for them and she thus carried out social work and made sure that the children could attend school and that they were provided with food and medicine . The applicant wife 's parents did not like this and sent her to GPE , where she lived at a boarding house for NORP . In DATE , it appears , she and all the women at the boarding house were detained by the police , suspected of having blown up a bus . They were not provided with anything to eat or drink during the detention . Subsequently , she was arrested and interrogated on several occasions , including by ORG and the military . Her father paid for her release and arranged for her to leave GPE around DATE . Her case in GPE was undecided but she remained on a list of suspects . Upon return , the police would reopen her case and that would harm her entire family . She did not want to ruin her children 's chances of having an education .

In an asylum registration report of DATE , the applicant husband stated that he had been a member of the NORP for DATE , when he was DATE . He realised that the organisation was not for him . Thereafter he stayed neutral and was not a member of any political or religious party or organisation . He sold his garage in DATE in order to leave GPE , which he did in DATE . Being unsatisfied with the service in GPE and allegedly having trouble with the mafia there , the family decided to move to GPE .

NORP In an asylum application of DATE the applicant husband stated that he had been a member of the ORG from DATE . Having completed his training , he distributed propaganda for the organisation . He owned a garage at which he repaired cars , minibuses and jeeps . Both the ORG and the military brought their vehicles and would threaten him to work for CARDINAL party . The ORG also asked him to place a bomb in a military jeep . He refused and was then accused of being an informant . He kept a low profile for a while and sold his garage so that he could leave the country . If returned to GPE , the ORG would give him a death sentence .

According to an interview report of DATE , prepared by ORG ( Udlændingestyrelsen , now GPE ) the applicant husband added , inter alia , that when he was a member of the ORG in DATE he trained with them CARDINAL times a week , after school or after lunch breaks . He ended his membership because he wanted to finish training to be a mechanic . The ORG told him that he could still assist them by putting up posters . He did not always comply with their orders because he was afraid of being caught by the authorities . The latter asked him frequently about the NORP and its whereabouts and he would tell the authorities that he did not know anything . Nothing further would happen . The applicant husband was never wanted , detained or convicted and he had no criminal record . While working as mechanic , he had both the military and the NORP as customers . In DATE , he refused a request by the ORG to place a bomb in a military vehicle . He begged them not to cause any problems for him and eventually they left . In the end he felt so much under pressure and suspicion by both parties that he decided to leave the country . His departure was not triggered by a specific event , rather the general problems with the NORP and the military forces had become too much . In DATE or DATE he sold his garage . Thereafter he married and in DATE he travelled on his own to GPE with a view to leaving GPE . DATE he left for GPE .

According to an interview report of DATE , prepared by ORG , the applicant wife added , inter alia , that she had lived with her family at a boarding house in GPE for DATE . Before that she had lived at a refugee camp for NORP who wanted to go to GPE . Before that , from DATE , she had been a forced member of the ORG 's students ' organisation and carried out social work for the NORP . Her father had also carried out social work . He had not been a member of the NORP but was accused of being a supporter , which caused problems for the family . Her father was detained once in DATE or DATE , and in DATE he was detained many times . The police would come to their home which was situated in an area controlled by ORG . It was due to their NORP ethnicity that the family had so many problems with the army . The applicant wife did not know her sister 's exact position in ORG , as she had not been in touch with her for DATE , but she assumed that her sister had been a rank - and - file member of the ORG for DATE . When the applicant wife was detained in GPE in connection with the bombing of the bus , she spent DATE at the police station . It was a female suicide bomber wearing sandals who had blown up the bus , and the police therefore checked all girls wearing sandals , including the applicant , who was innocent . Her sister was also arrested in that connection . If returned to GPE , the applicant wife feared problems with the GPE army , which would know that she had been away from her country for DATE . She did not want to ruin her children 's future and she feared that they would not be able to go to school in GPE .

NORP By letter of DATE ORG requested ORG in GPE to provide information about the applicants ' basis for residence in GPE . By letter of DATE , the ORG stated that the applicant husband had been granted refugee status in GPE on DATE . His residence permit expired on DATE and his passport expired on DATE . A prohibition on his entry into GPE had been issued against him until DATE . The applicant wife and the oldest child had also been granted refugee status in GPE on DATE and been granted unlimited protection on CARDINAL and DATE , respectively . Their residence permit for GPE expired on DATE and the passport expired on DATE . The youngest child had obtained refugee status in GPE on DATE . The applicant wife and the CARDINAL children had a right to stay in GPE even though their residence permit and passport had expired .

On DATE the applicants ' request for asylum was refused by ORG finding that the applicants ' previous connection with ORG was unknown to the Sri - NORP authorities and that none of them would face a real and concrete danger of being subjected to treatment contrary to LAW upon return to GPE . Thus , they failed to fulfil the criteria under LAW ( PERSON ) to be granted asylum .

The applicants appealed against the decision to ORG ( PERSON ) , before which an oral hearing was held on DATE . The applicant wife stated , among other things , that her father had led a humanitarian organisation which supported the ORG . Moreover , while being a member of the ORG 's students ' organisation she organised DATE meetings and made speeches and read out poetry . She was a publicly known person and NORP supporter . Her speeches were not political but concerned the situation in the country and the people who had given their lives for it . She had no connection with the high - ranking members of the NORP and she never carried out any military activities for the organisation . After the marriage , her husband ran into problems with the army and they left because he was wanted .

At the same oral hearing before ORG , the applicant husband changed his explanation and stated that he had sold his garage already in DATE and lived in hiding for DATE until he left GPE . He had to leave because the army knew about his work for the ORG . At some unknown time , several men from the army had pointed at him and said “ tiger ” and beaten him . The applicant husband submitted a declaration in LANGUAGE from a lawyer in GPE of DATE to “ whom it may concern ” stating that the applicant husband was one of several suspected of helping NORP and that he was “ wanted by the NORP NORP police and that there was a case pending against him ” . The applicant husband explained that the police had come to his home and delivered the letter to his mother . Subsequently , his mother had contacted the said lawyer who had contact with all NORP authorities . The lawyer had said that the applicant husband was wanted for a criminal offence related to the abduction of a man who had worked at his garage . The applicant husband was therefore a wanted person in GPE and would be killed by the authorities upon return .

On DATE , ORG upheld the refusal to grant the applicants asylum . It found that the authorities were not aware of the activities carried out by the applicant wife which ended DATE before her departure . Likewise , it found that the applicant husband 's activities had a low profile character . Moreover , having regard to the time that had passed since the activities took place , there was no basis for assuming that the applicants were at risk of persecution upon return . Finally , it found that the applicants ' new changed explanations before it lacked credibility and it did not attach any value as evidence to the declaration submitted .

On DATE the applicants ' request for a residence permit on humanitarian grounds was refused by ORG ( NORP for flygtninge , indvandrere og integration ) .

On DATE ORG ( ORG ) , an NGO , requested ORG to reopen the case . It referred to the applicants ' previous explanations and the general deterioration of the security situation in GPE . In addition it alleged that the applicant husband was of interest to the authorities , most recently in connection with a bombing in DATE , and that the same applied to the applicant wife , who was of interest to the authorities due to her extensive activities for the ORG ; her many arrests ; her sister 's high - profile membership of the NORP and subsequent television exposure ; and her father 's and cousin 's affiliation with the NORP .

On DATE , on the applicants ' behalf , ORG also submitted a letter to ORG requesting that it stay the applicants ' deportation .

On DATE , ORG decided to apply Rule CARDINAL of ORG , indicating to the Government that it was in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings that the applicants should not be expelled to GPE pending the ORG 's decision .

Consequently , on DATE ORG extended the time - limit for the applicants ' departure until further notice .

On DATE ORG decided to reopen the applicants ' asylum case .

NORP By letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicants ' representative forwarded a CD - ROM to ORG with a copy of a television broadcast which allegedly showed that the applicant wife 's sister was active with the ORG as a high - profile “ training master ” . The representative maintained that in DATE the applicant wife had talked to her father in GPE .

On DATE ORG decided to suspend the examination of all asylum cases concerning ethnic NORP from northern GPE , including the applicants ' case .

On DATE , on the basis of the most recent background information concerning GPE including , inter alia , a Memorandum of CARDINAL DATE prepared by ORG , ORG decided to review the suspended cases , including the applicants ' case .

ORG obtained the files on the applicants from the NORP and the NORP authorities .

During a hearing before ORG on DATE the applicant wife submitted a photograph of a stage performance and explained that she had played before an audience of CARDINAL people at such theatrical events . The play in question concerned the life story of an NORP member , who was a martyr . The applicant wife believed that there were people present among the audience who informed the Government about the plays . Furthermore , her father had been deeply involved with the NORP . The applicant wife added that just before her departure in DATE she was arrested by the criminal police in GPE , who said that she was to be interviewed again at a different location . Her father bribed the police and DATE after , she left the country . The last time the applicant wife had contact with her family was when she spoke to her cousin in DATE . She last spoke to her mother and sister in DATE . The applicant did not know where her family was . The applicant wife showed a video clip from GPE to ORG , allegedly showing her sister with other NORP members in DATE . The applicant had last seen her sister in DATE when they lived at the boarding house in GPE . The applicant did not know where her sister was . Finally , the applicant wife submitted that in GPE , she has participated in demonstrations against the hostilities in GPE .

At the outset of the hearing before ORG on DATE the applicant husband stated that he was mentally well and capable of being interviewed . He stated that he and his father were attacked by NORP in DATE . His father was killed and the applicant sustained an injury to his hand . Moreover , he had inherited the garage from his parents in DATE . DATE the ORG had asked the applicant husband to place a bomb in a military vehicle . He had refused but hid the bomb in his garage , where it remained even after he sold the garage for CARDINAL rupees in DATE . He was afraid that the bomb had been discovered and that he was therefore wanted by the authorities . He left GPE using a false passport with his own picture . The applicant husband had no contact with his family . He last spoke with them in DATE . However , in DATE and DATE he received CARDINAL letters from his mother who stated that the buyer of the garage had informed the authorities about the bomb in the garage and that the secret police sought her out in order to find him . It appears that he submitted the CARDINAL said letters from his mother , dated DATE and DATE , alleging that the authorities were looking for the applicant husband . It also appears that the applicant husband submitted yet another declaration from the same lawyer , who had made the declaration in DATE . It was dated DATE to “ whom it may concern ” and stated , inter alia , that the search for the applicant husband “ had been intensified by the police , intelligence unit of ORG and the parliamentary groups ” and that “ there were several cases against him for allegedly supporting the NORP ” .

On DATE , ORG refused to reopen the applicants ' case . It found that the most recent general background information would not lead to a revised assessment of the case . More specifically in its letter to the applicant 's representative it stated as follows :

ORG finds that the applicants have provided new and/or extended information during the reopened proceedings , and that this gives rise to critical doubt about the credibility of the applicants ' information , as there appears to be no reasonable explanation for the late appearance of the information , even in view of the information regarding the applicant husband 's mental difficulties , see counsel 's pleading of DATE with exhibits . The applicant wife has thus stated that the reason why she did not inform ORG of her NORP theatre performances in the previous asylum proceedings was that at the time she was not in possession of the photograph now submitted ... ORG finds that this is not a reasonable explanation why she did not , at the beginning of her asylum case , inform ORG of the high profile that she now invokes . The applicant wife further stated that , in connection with the arrest where her father paid a bribe for her release , she was the only one arrested and that she was to be questioned again at a different location , and that this arrest was the reason for her departure DATE . ORG finds that this statement contradicts her statement at the interview of DATE as reported by ORG according to which she was arrested with the sister who now lives in GPE and that her father paid for the release without any conditions . It appears from her asylum application form that the arrest for which her father paid a bribe took place in DATE . Her departure was in DATE . ORG finds that the applicant wife 's statement appears to have been extended on essential points and it only considers it a fact that her father did social or humanitarian work in the local community in his home town ... without being a member of the ORG , that as a member of the NORP DATE , the applicant wife also did social work for the NORP , including distribution of food and medicine , that she lived in various places after DATE , at which time she was exposed to general , brief periods of detention , and that DATE prior to her departure she lived in GPE , from where she departed using her genuine national passport . Moreover , ORG noted that the information provided by the applicant wife , that the last time she had contact with her father was in DATE , does not correspond with the information provided by ORG in its letter of DATE . ORG further notes that the applicant wife 's brief arrests were in the nature of general detention in which several other NORP were detained by the authorities in connection with situations where the ORG was considered responsible for specific actions . The applicant wife was released unconditionally every time . She stayed in GPE for DATE with part of her family before her departure . They were registered with the authorities in GPE . She departed using her own , genuine nationality passport . At the above interview , the applicant wife stated about her sister in the NORP that she had been a member of the NORP for DATE and that she assumed that her sister was a rank - and - file member , but that she had no contact with her . This statement contradicts the information about the sister provided by ORG in its letter of DATE .

The applicant husband stated to ORG that , contrary to what he stated in DATE , he did in fact own the garage until DATE . He further stated that ORG left a bomb in his garage , that he hid the bomb there and that that was the reason why he chose to sell the garage ... in DATE for CARDINAL Sri NORP rupees . Thereafter , he stayed in various locations until DATE when he took up residence in or near GPE . He did not use his own name and was not registered with the authorities , and in DATE he left using a false passport with his picture inserted . ORG finds that this statement contradicts the applicant husband 's previous statements , including the interview report of DATE according to which he stated that he refused to help the ORG plant the bomb , that the NORP had eventually left , and that the NORP as well as people from the NORP army continued to force him to work for them , that he needed the money but that they did not pay very often , and that he eventually could not stand it and therefore sold his garage in DATE or DATE , that he stayed for DATE in GPE before his departure , and that he departed lawfully using his genuine passport in which a study visa had been inserted . In its decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG rejected the idea that the applicant husband was the subject of a specific search at his mother 's house , and on the basis of an assessment of the applicant 's statement at the current ORG hearing , ORG does not find that the current statement and the letter from the mother , which dates from DATE , ... [ can ] lead to a revised assessment . Therefore , concerning the applicant husband , ORG only considers it a fact that he sustained an injury to his hand in DATE in connection with the assault where his father was killed , that he trained with the ORG for DATE and subsequently left without problems to continue his education , that he probably inherited the garage from his mother 's family in DATE , that he ran the garage , that he sold the garage in DATE because both the ORG and the Sri NORP authorities were pressuring him to work for them , and that thereafter he stayed in various locations , most recently for DATE in GPE before departing from the airport in GPE in DATE using his own name and his own genuine passport .

... As the applicants ' statements are assessed , ORG thus deems it a conclusive fact that neither applicant stood out at all in DATE and DATE . Neither of them was wanted by the Sri NORP authorities nor did they have any specific conflicts with the authorities . Both departed lawfully . In the assessment of whether , if they were to return to GPE , including via GPE , the applicants , who are ethnic NORP from northern GPE , would risk persecution or assault as covered by section CARDINAL of LAW , including treatment as covered by LAW ORG , particularly because a video clip exists on PERSON of the applicant wife 's younger sister who allegedly was a high - ranking so - called training master in ORG according to the information received , ORG notes that in the sequence shown the person pointed out in the video clip - in part together with others and in part alone - is seen wearing a uniform and carrying weapons and ammunition and agitating for the ORG 's fight . The person in question speaks directly to the camera . ORG notes that there is no other information available about the applicant 's younger sister apart from that provided for the case by the applicant wife herself . In this connection , it gives rise to some uncertainty with ORG that the applicant wife stated at the hearing that the last times she had contact with her parents was in DATE , but that a cousin told her in a brief telephone conversation in DATE that the family was staying in PERSON According to the information from ORG ... on DATE , the applicant wife stated that in DATE she was contacted by her father who informed her that he was with her sister , but that they would move to M as soon as possible . Even if it is considered a fact that the sister in question is the person pointed out in the video clip on GPE , ORG finds that , in view of the applicants ' insignificant profile as described above , their return would not put them at risk of persecution or assault as covered by section CARDINAL of LAW . This assessment takes into consideration that the applicants departed lawfully from GPE in DATE and are now CARDINAL and DATE , respectively . Although the applicants are ethnic NORP from northern GPE , neither of them has had specific conflicts with the Sri NORP authorities and can not be considered to be wanted or having been wanted previously . In this respect , ORG finds that the circumstance that as ethnic NORP from northern GPE the applicants may risk being questioned by authorities when entering the country does not lead to a revised assessment of the case in terms of asylum law . In this assessment , consideration has been had to the background information available to ORG , from which it appears that the individuals at particular risk of being detained and investigated upon entry in GPE are young NORP , men in particular , from northern and eastern GPE : those without ID ; those not resident or employed in GPE ; and those recently returned from the LOC , see GPE ORG to GPE , GPE DATE . It further appears from the background material available to the ORG that , in general , individuals who have previously supported ORG on a lower level are not of interest to the authorities , see ORG , Operational Guidance Note , GPE , DATE , and ORG to GPE , GPE DATE . Therefore , ORG finds that , following an overall assessment of the specific circumstances of the present case , including the specific assessment that must be made according to the ORG 's decision of DATE , ORG . v. GPE , the applicants can not be considered to be in such a position upon return that it justifies asylum . The injury to the applicant husband 's little finger on his right hand is found not to lead to another assessment . The circumstance that the applicant wife has participated in demonstrations in GPE as CARDINAL of several GPE demonstrators is also found not to lead to another assessment . Accordingly , the applicants are still not entitled to a residence permit under section CARDINAL of LAW as they , if they return , are not considered to be at risk of persecution that could motivate asylum or of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment as covered by section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL of LAW ... No time limit for departure is fixed as ... the ORG has requested ORG not to return the applicants by force for the time being with reference to LAW . If the applicants ' basis for lawful residence in GPE lapses , they must leave GPE immediately ... If the applicants do not leave voluntarily , they may forcibly be returned to GPE ...

At some unknown time thereafter the applicant husband moved to GPE and obtained a residence permit .

By virtue of section CARDINAL of LAW ( GPE ) , asylum is granted to aliens who satisfy the conditions of LAW . Applications for asylum are determined in the first instance by the former ORG ( now called ORG ) and in the second instance by ORG .

Pursuant to section DATE , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW , decisions by ORG are final , which means that there is no avenue for appeal against the ORG 's decisions . Aliens may , however , by virtue of LAW ( PERSON ) bring an appeal before the ordinary courts , which have authority to adjudge on any matter concerning the limits to the competence of a public authority .

DATE 's country of origin or first country of asylum . For this purpose , ORG has a comprehensive collection of general background material on the situation in the countries from which GPE receives asylumseekers . The material is up - dated and supplemented on a continuous basis . The background material of ORG is obtained from various authorities , in particular ORG and ORG . In addition , background material is procured from various organisations , including ORG , ORG and other international human rights organisations and the ORG . Also included are the annual reports of ORG ) on the human rights situation in a large number of countries , reports from ORG , reports from the documentation centre of ORG , reports from ORG , reports from ORG ( ORG for Asylum Practitioners ) , reports from the authorities of other countries and to some extent articles from identifiable ( international ) journals . Moreover , the ORG may request ORG to issue an opinion on whether it can confirm information from a background memorandum drafted in general terms . ORG also retrieves some of its background material from the Internet . Internet access also enables the ORG to obtain more specific information in relation to special problems in individual cases .

Usually , ORG assigns counsel to the applicant . Board hearings are oral and the applicant is allowed to make a statement and answer questions . The ORG decision will normally be served on the applicant immediately after the ORG hearing , and at the same time the Chairman will briefly explain the reason for the decision made .

Extensive information about GPE can be found in ORG . v. the GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE . The information set out below concerns events occurring after the delivery of the said judgment on CARDINAL DATE and , in particular , after the cessation of hostilities in DATE .

Fighting between the GPE army and the ORG intensified in DATE , with the army taking a number of rebel strongholds in the north and east of the country . On DATE , in an address to the country 's parliament , the President of GPE announced the end of hostilities and the death of the leader of the LTTE , PERSON . It was also reported that most , if not all , of the NORP 's leadership had been killed .

NORP DATE , ORG for ORG had estimated that CARDINAL people had already reached internally displaced persons ' camps , including CARDINAL in DATE . In addition , it was believed that another CARDINAL people were on their way to the camps through the crossing point at GPE , in the northern district of PERSON .

In DATE , ORG reported that the number of killings in GPE in DATE ( including deaths of civilians , security forces and members of the ORG ) was : CARDINAL in DATE ; CARDINAL in DATE ; CARDINAL in DATE and CARDINAL DATE and DATE . CARDINAL people were reported to have been killed in total over the course of DATE conflict .

“ Notwithstanding the cessation of the hostilities , the current protection and humanitarian environment in GPE remains extremely challenging . In the GPE , nearly the entire population from the territory formerly held by the NORP in the LOC ( CARDINAL NORP ) has been confined to heavily militarized camps in the LOC region . Although the government has gradually reduced the military presence in the camps and has pledged to start the progressive return to their villages of origin of the majority of those in the camps , it is clear that this may take a considerable amount of time . The lack of freedom of movement remains the overriding concern for this population restricting its ability to reunite with family members outside the camps , access employment , attend regular schools , and ultimately choose their place of residence . ”

A Human Rights Watch [ HRW ] press release , dated DATE , reported that :

“ The government has effectively sealed off the detention camps from outside scrutiny . Human rights organizations , journalists , and other independent observers are not allowed inside , and humanitarian organizations with access have been forced to sign a statement that they will not disclose information about the conditions in the camps without government permission . On several occasions , the government expelled foreign journalists and aid workers who had collected and publicized information about camp conditions , or did not renew their visas . ”

A further ORG press release dated DATE set out concerns that CARDINAL NORP civilians remained in detention camps without the freedom to leave .

In DATE , the first post - war local elections were held in LOC . ORG reported that voter turn - out was low due to the number of people who were still displaced . The governing party , ORG , took the majority of seats in the biggest city in the region , GPE . However , ORG , a party sympathetic to the defeated ORG , took the majority of seats in PERSON , the other town where polling took place .

On DATE , PERSON , the official spokesman for ORG in GPE was ordered to leave GPE because of adverse remarks that he had made to the media about the plight of NORP in the government - run camps .

On DATE the Sri Lankan Official Government News Portal announced that the motion to extend ORG ( under which the authorities have extensive anti - terrorism powers and heightened levels of security including checkpoints and road blocks ) by DATE had been passed by ORG with a majority of CARDINAL votes .

In a report dated DATE , GPE ORG published a report entitled “ Report to ORG on Incidents During the Recent Conflict in GPE ” , which compiled incidents from DATE , when the fighting intensified , until DATE . Without reaching any conclusions as to whether they had occurred or would constitute violations of international law , it set out extensive reports of enforced child soldiers , the killing of captives or combatants trying to surrender , enforced disappearances and severe humanitarian conditions during the hostilities .

DATE . On DATE , ORG announced its decision that all internally displaced persons would be given freedom of movement and allowed to leave the detention camps from DATE .

In its Global Appeal DATE , the ORG reported that :

“ The Government - led military operations in northern GPE which ended in May DATE displaced CARDINAL people , most of whom fled their homes in DATE of the fighting . The majority of these internally displaced persons ( IDPs ) now live in closed camps in Vavuniya district , as well as in camps in GPE , GPE and PERSON . CARDINAL IDPs , some of whom have been displaced since DATE , are also in need of durable solutions .

The IDPs originate mainly from the NORP , PERSON , PERSON , GPE and GPE districts in northern GPE , as well as from some areas in the east of the country . Though the end of hostilities has paved the way for the voluntary return of displaced people , some key obstacles to return remain . For instance , many of the areas of return are riddled with mines and unexploded ordnance . Not all are considered to be of high risk , particularly those away from former frontlines , but mine - risk surveys and the demarcation of no - go areas are urgently needed .

Other key obstacles to return include the need to re - establish administrative structures in areas formerly held by ORG ; the destruction or damaged condition of public infrastructure and private homes ; and the breakdown of the economy - including agriculture and fisheries .

The Government of GPE is planning the return framework , and it has called on ORG for support with return transport , non - food items , return shelter , livelihoods support and assistance in building the capacity of local authorities .

With some progress having been recently achieved , it is hoped that a substantial number of IDPs will be able to return to their places of origin in DATE , but a large portion of new IDPs are also likely to remain in the camps and with host families until well into DATE . ”

In a Human Rights Report DATE , dated DATE , GPE State Department stated that ORG accepted assistance from NGOs and international actors for the ORG camps but management of the camps and control of assistance were under the military rather than civilian authorities . Food , water , and medical care were all insufficient in DATE after DATE war , but by DATE the situation had stabilised and observers reported that basic needs were being met . In DATE the military withdrew from inside the camps but continued to provide security around the barbed wire - enclosed perimeter . The IDPs in the largest camp , ORG , were not given freedom of movement until DATE , when a system of temporary exit passes was implemented for those who had not yet been returned to their districts of origin . Some observers said that this exit system still did not qualify as freedom of movement .

DATE . ORG , in their report , ORG DATE , estimated that DATE after the main fighting ended , the ORG continued to hold CARDINAL people ( CARDINAL of them women and girls ) in the camps . CARDINAL of these were children . The camps were severely overcrowded , many of them holding twice the number recommended by the ORG . As a result , access to basic requirements such as food , water , shelter , toilets and bathing , had been inadequate . These conditions imposed particular hardships on the elderly , children and pregnant women . The camps were under military administration , and effective monitoring by humanitarian agencies was lacking . The authorities failed to provide camp residents with sufficient information about the reason for their continued detention , the whereabouts of relatives , or the criteria and procedure for their return home .

GPE on GPE of DATE ( “ the DATE ORG ” ) stated as follows :

CARDINAL ORG ( ORG ) report GPE : A Bitter Peace , CARDINAL DATE , also referred to “ extra - legal detention centres ” maintained by the military and observed : “ These detained have had no access to lawyers , their families , ORG or any other protection agency , and it is unclear what is happening inside the centres . In addition , ' the grounds on which the ex - combatants have been identified and the legal basis on which they are detained are totally unclear and arbitrary ' . Given the well - established practice of torture , enforced disappearance and extra - judicial killing of ORG suspects under the current and previous NORP governments , there are grounds for grave concerns about the fate of the detained . The government has announced that of those alleged ex - combatants currently detained , CARDINAL will be put on the trial ; most will detained for a further period of ' rehabilitation ' and then released . ”

CARDINAL Referring to the “ CARDINAL people ” detained “ in so - called ' rehabilitation centers ” because of their alleged association with the ORG , the ORG [ document Legal Limbo , The Uncertain Fate of ORG in GPE , released on DATE , observed : “ The government has routinely violated the detainees ' fundamental human rights , including the right to be informed of specific reasons for arrest , the right to challenge the lawfulness of the detention before an independent judicial authority , and the right of access to legal counsel and family members . The authorities ' consistent failure to inform families of the basis for the detainees ' arrest and their whereabouts raises serious concerns that some detainees may have been victims of torture and ill - treatment , which are more likely to take place where due process of law is lacking and which have long been serious problems in GPE . Given the lack of information about some detainees , there is also a risk that some may have been ' disappeared ' . ”

CARDINAL The ORG ' Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum - Seekers from GPE , DATE reported that “ In the wake of the conflict , CARDINAL persons suspected of NORP links were arrested and detained in high - security camps ” adding that “ According to a ORG survey , as of DATE , CARDINAL ORG cadres were being held at CARDINAL centres . Among the detainees were CARDINAL males and CARDINAL females . ” and noted that “ Some of the adult detainees have ... been released after completing rehabilitation programmes or because they were no longer deemed to present a risk , including some persons with physical disabilities . ”

The DATE ORG also set out :

CARDINAL The ORG [ ORG ] , ORG , GPE , DATE reported : “ The ORG has warned that GPE faces losing trade advantages under LAW ( GSP - Plus ) scheme from DATE , unless the ORG commits itself in writing to improving its human rights record . The ORG has put forward CARDINAL conditions that it says the Government needs to promise to meet within DATE . These include : ensuring that the CARDINALth amendment to the constitution , which requires that appointments to public positions be impartial and reflect the country 's ethnic and religious mix , is enforced ; repealing parts of LAW that are incompatible with GPE covenants on political and human rights ; reforming the criminal code to allow suspects immediate access to a lawyer on arrest ; and allowing journalists to carry out their professional duties without harassment . However , the ORG has rebuffed the ORG , stressing that the issues that it has raised are internal political matters that should not be linked to trade . “ The ORG is not the only international body currently putting pressure on the government . GPE has also rejected the ORG 's appointment of a CARDINAL - member panel to examine possible human rights violations during the island 's civil war . The Sri Lankan authorities have warned that they will not provide visas for panel members to enter the country . ”

CARDINAL The ORG , ORG , GPE , DATE noted that : “ The decision by the ORG secretary - general , Ban PERSON [ on DATE ] , to appoint a panel to examine accountability issues stemming from the final stages of the island 's civil war , which ended in DATE , has prompted a strong reaction in GPE ...

CARDINAL On DATE ORG reported that “ Secretary - General Ban Kimoon has held his first meeting with the panel of experts set up to advise him on accountability issues relating to alleged violations of international humanitarian and human rights law during the final stages DATE of the conflict in GPE . ” The source also noted that the role of the experts was to examine “ the modalities , applicable international standards and comparative experience with regard to accountability processes , taking into account the nature and scope of any alleged violations in GPE . ”

GPE on GPE of DATE ( “ the DATE ORG ” ) sets out a series of letters from ORG – hereafter “ LOC ” , GPE , on arrival procedures at GPE airport . In its letter of DATE , the ORG observed :

“ [ T]he correct procedure for [ ORG and Emigration [ DIE ] ] officers is to record the arrival of these persons manually in a logbook held in the adjacent Chief Immigration Officer 's office . The name , date and time of arrival and arriving flight details are written into the log . It records why the person has come to their attention and how the case was disposed of . I have had the opportunity to look at the log , and it appears that the CARDINAL ways of disposal are to be passed to ORG [ ORG ] , or allowed to proceed .

The office of ORG [ SIS ] is in the immigration arrivals hall and an officer from ORG usually patrols the arrivals area during each incoming flight . Invariably , if they notice a person being apprehended they approach IED [ ORG ] and take details in order to ascertain in [ sic ] the person may be of interest to them . Their office contains CARDINAL computer terminals , CARDINAL belonging to the airport containing flight information and CARDINAL stand - alone terminals . If an apprehended person is considered suitable to be passed to ORG , they are physically walked across the terminal building to the ORG offices . A ORG officer should then manually record the arrival of the person in a logbook held in their office ... often persons shown in the ORG logbook to have been handed to ORG are never actually recorded as being received in the ORG logbook . It is believed that ORG has allowed these persons to proceed and no action has been taken against them . ”

The same letter also noted that ORG offices at the airport contained CARDINAL computers , which were not linked to any national database . Any checks on persons detained or apprehended were conducted over the phone with colleagues in central GPE . There were no fingerprint records at the airport . CARDINAL computer contained records of suspects who had been arrested and charged with offences , and court reference numbers . It continued as follows :

“ Were a Sri NORP national to arrive at FAC having been removed or deported from GPE , they would be in possession of either a valid national NORP passport , or an emergency travel document / temporary passport , issued by ORG in GPE . The holder of a valid passport would have the document endorsed by the immigration officer on arrival and handed back to him / her . A national passport contains the national ORG card number on the laminated details page . I have made enquiries with the DIE at FAC , and with ORG who meet certain returnees at the airport , and both have confirmed that a person travelling on an emergency travel document is dealt with similarly . They too have the document endorsed by the immigration officer on arrival and returned to them . Before issuing an emergency travel document , ORG in GPE will have details of an applicant confirmed against records held in GPE and will thus satisfactorily confirm the holder 's nationality and identity . If a returnee subsequently wishes to obtain a national identity card , they have to follow the normal procedures . ”

In a letter dated DATE , the ORG reported that an official had spent TIME observing the return of failed asylum seekers from GPE , including those who were in possession of emergency travel documents , issued by ORG in GPE . In the official 's opinion , the fact that certain returnees had been issued with emergency travel documents by ORG in GPE did not seem to make any difference to their treatment upon arrival .

The Report of Information Gathering Visit to GPE on CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE , conducted jointly by ORG and ORG ( “ the Report of Information Gathering Visit , DATE ” ) , concluded that all enforced returns ( of whatever ethnicity ) were referred to the ORG at the airport for nationality and criminal record checks , which could take TIME . All enforced returns were wet - fingerprinted . Depending on the case , the individual could also be referred to the ORG and/or ORG for questioning . Anyone who was wanted for an offence would be arrested .

NORP The report set out that those with a criminal record or ORG connections would face additional questioning and might be detained . In general , non - government and international sources agreed that NORP from the north and east of the country were likely to receive greater scrutiny than others , and that the presence of the factors below would increase the risk that an individual could encounter difficulties with the authorities , including possible detention :

- Outstanding arrest warrant

- Criminal record

- Connection with the LTTE

- Bail jumping / escape from custody

- Illegal departure from GPE

- Scarring

- Involvement with media or NGOs

- Lack of an ORG card or other documentation

GPE on GPE of DATE set out the following :

CARDINAL The ORG letter of CARDINAL DATE went on to observe that : “ At DATE , partly due to the large numbers of NORP being returned from around the world and causing logistical problems , ORG procedures were relaxed in that they no longer had to detain returnees until written confirmation was received from the local police . All returnees are still interviewed , photographed and wet fingerprinted . The main objective of these interviews is to establish if the returnee has a criminal record , or if they are wanted or suspected of committing any criminal offences by the police . The photographs are stored on a standalone computer in the ORG office at the airport . The fingerprints remain amongst paper records also in the ORG office at the airport . Checks are initiated with local police , but returnees are released to a friend or relative , whom ORG refers to as a surety . This surety must provide evidence of who they are , and must sign for the returnee . They are not required to lodge any money with ORG . “ The main ORG offices at FAC , which are housed on the ground floor adjacent to the ORG embarkation control , are currently undergoing a complete refurbishment funded by the NORP government . The CARDINAL completed office suite has CARDINAL purpose built interview rooms , and facilities where returnees can relax and eat meals . ”

CARDINAL A ORG letter of DATE reported : “ There is strong anecdotal evidence that scarring has been used in the past to identify suspects . Previous conversations with the police and in the media , the authorities have openly referred to physical examinations being used to identify whether suspects have undergone military style training . More recent claims from contacts in government ministries suggest that this practice has either ceased or is used less frequently . At the very least it appears that the security forces only conduct these when there is another reason to suspect an individual , and are not looking for particular scars as such , but anything that may indicate the suspect has been involved in fighting and/or military training . There is no recent evidence to suggest that these examinations are routinely carried out on immigration returnees . ”

On DATE , Tamilnet reported that CARDINAL NORP youths were taken into custody by ORG of the Sri Lanka Police at FAC in CARDINAL separate incidents whilst trying to leave GPE . It was also reported that since DATE , special teams of ORG and police had been deployed in the airport to monitor the movement of NORP who try to go abroad .

The Report of Information Gathering Visit , DATE , stated that the frequency of cordon and search operations had not reduced significantly in DATE , though there were fewer large - scale operations than in DATE . In general , young male NORP originating from the north and east of the country were most at risk of being detained following cordon and search operations , with the presence of the risk factors set out above increasing that risk . Those without employment or legitimate purpose for being in GPE were also likely to be seen as suspect . The same report also noted that most sources agreed that there had been few , if any , abductions or disappearances since DATE . There was not a great deal of available information about the profile of NORP targeted for abduction , although it appeared that people linked to the media might be more vulnerable . Police did not generally carry out effective investigations . It went on to note that most sources agreed that there had not been any significant reduction in the number of checkpoints in GPE , whose stated purpose remained to detect and prevent terrorist activity . In general those most likely to be questioned were young NORP from the north and east ; those without ID ; those not resident or employed in GPE ; and those recently returned from the West . However , most sources said that arrests at checkpoints were rare and none had been reported since DATE . It was reportedly fairly likely that someone would be stopped at a checkpoint en route from the airport to GPE . Finally , it clarified that people who wished to live in GPE but did not originate from there must register with the local police station with a national ID card or full passport , and details of planned length and purpose of stay . In theory , whilst anyone was entitled to register to stay in GPE , some sources suggested that young NORP men originally from the north or east of the country could encounter difficulties and face closer scrutiny . The presence of any of the risk factors set out above would also attract greater attention from the police .

“ The significant majority of reported cases of human rights violations in GPE involve persons of NORP ethnicity who originate from the LOC and LOC ... In Government - controlled areas , NORP who originate from the LOC and the LOC , which are , or have been under ORG control , are frequently suspected as being associated with the NORP . For this reason , NORP from the LOC and the LOC are at heightened risk of human rights violations related to the implementation of anti - terrorism and anti - insurgency measures . While this risk exists in all parts of GPE , it is greatest in areas in which the ORG remains active , and where security measures are heaviest , in particular the LOC and parts of the LOC , and in and around GPE . ”

“ The country of origin information that ORG has considered indicates that NORP from LOC continue to face a significant risk of suffering serious human rights violations in the region ( and elsewhere in the country ) because of their race ( ethnicity ) or ( imputed ) political opinion . NORP in the LOC are still heavily targeted in the security and anti - terrorism measures described in LAW . Wide scale detention and confinement of NORP from the LOC remains a serious concern . ORG paramilitary elements also continue to operate with impunity against NORP in the LOC . ”

ORG from GPE of DATE , which superseded the DATE Guidelines contained information on the particular profiles for which international protection needs may arise in the current context . It was stated that :

“ given the cessation of hostilities , NORP originating from the north of the country are no longer in need of international protection under broader refugee criteria or complementary forms of protection solely on the basis of risk of indiscriminate harm . In light of the improved human rights and security situation in GPE , there is no longer a need for group - based protection mechanisms or for a presumption of eligibility for NORP of NORP ethnicity originating from the north of the country . It is important to bear in mind that the situation is still evolving , which has made the drafting of these LAW particularly complex . ”

In summary , the following were ORG 's recommendations : All claims by asylum seekers from GPE

( i ) persons suspected of having links with ORG ( NORP ) ;

( ii ) journalists and other media professionals ;

( iii ) civil society and human rights activists ;

( iv ) women and children with certain profiles ; and

( v ) lesbian , gay , bisexual and transgender ( ORG ) individuals .

It was also stated that in the light of GPE DATE internal armed conflict , and a record of serious human rights violations and transgressions of international humanitarian law , exclusion considerations under LAW may arise in relation to individual asylum seeker claims by GPE asylum seekers .

DATE . The ORG reported in DATE that the Colombo Police force had opened CARDINAL special units in GPE suburbs able to take statements in GPE , with plans for more . Previously , GPE - speaking NORP had to rely on a friend to translate their complaints into NORP .