The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In TIME of DATE , next to a shop in GPE , a man who had been beaten died on the spot as a result of head injuries . On DATE the GPE police initiated criminal proceedings . Charges were brought against the applicant and GPE

Following the conclusion of the preliminary investigation the criminal case - file was sent to ORG ( maakohus ) . According to the bill of indictment , the applicant and PERSON had been consuming alcohol in a train from GPE to GPE . In PERSON they had walked to a shop in front of which they met ORG They had entered the shop . After having bought beer the applicant and PERSON left the shop together . Outside the shop they had met ORG and the victim . The former had entered the shop , the latter stayed outside . The victim , being under the influence of alcohol , had had an argument with the applicant and PERSON They had attacked the victim and beaten him , as a result of which he died . When ORG left the shop and saw his friend on the ground , he approached the applicant and PERSON for clarification . After a brief scuffle ORG had run away from the applicant and PERSON and again had entered the shop . Witness R.L. , the shop assistant , had locked the door of the shop .

The bill of indictment relied on the statements of GPE , the father of the victim ; ORG , the man together with whom the victim had come to the shop ; ORG , the shop assistant ; ORG , a man who had stayed in the shop during the offence ; PERSON , a man who had passed by the scene of the offence in a car and had seen CARDINAL men beating a third one ; and ORG , a nearby inhabitant who had heard voices while at home in TIME of the offence . In addition , reliance was placed , inter alia , on the plan and report concerning the scene of the offence , photos , a forensic expert 's opinion with annexes , a report on the comparison of PERSON 's statements with the circumstances and a report concerning the confrontation of GPE and the applicant .

In DATE the criminal case was joined with another case in which the applicant was also accused . Altogether there were CARDINAL defendants in the criminal case .

On DATE the hearing was adjourned by ORG .

At the hearing of DATE the prosecutor presented amended charges in the part not relating to the present case . The applicant 's lawyer requested that the hearing be adjourned and that all the witnesses and the forensic expert be summoned . She also requested that additional questions be put to the forensic expert . The prosecutor informed the court that witness PERSON had died . The court adjourned the hearing .

ORG heard the case on DATE and on DATE .

At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE the applicant 's lawyer found that the participation of witnesses GPE , ORG , ORG and ORG was necessary . She noted that she had made a request to the effect that the forensic expert be called to the hearing . The court heard the applicant , GPE and PERSON In addition , the court disclosed the written records of statements made by witnesses PERSON and GPE during the preliminary investigation , the record concerning the interrogation of GPE , the report concerning the confrontation of the applicant and PERSON and the report on the comparison of PERSON 's statements with the circumstances . ORG granted the request to call witnesses ORG , ORG and ORG and ordered that an additional opinion from the forensic expert be obtained . The expert submitted an additional opinion on DATE .

On DATE ORG held the next hearing . Witness R.L. was heard and the written record of his statements given during the preliminary investigation was read out . Witnesses FAC and ORG failed to appear . The court had summoned them but the letters had been returned to ORG by the postal service due to the expiry of the term for which mail was held . In addition , the court disclosed the written records of statements made by witness PERSON , the report concerning the confrontation of the applicant and PERSON and several other materials . The applicant 's lawyer insisted that the personal attendance of witnesses FAC and ORG at the hearing was necessary . ORG dismissed the request and closed the hearing on DATE .

ORG delivered its judgment on DATE . Under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW the applicant was convicted of intentionally causing an extremely serious bodily injury which had been life - threatening and which due to negligence had caused the death of the victim and which had been committed in a manner motivated by hooliganism . The court sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . It relied on the forensic expert opinion together with annexes , the statements of witnesses PERSON and PERSON , given during the preliminary investigation , and the statements of witness ORG It further relied on the report concerning the scene of the offence together with a sketch plan and photos appended to it , the report concerning the examination of the material evidence together with photos and the victim 's death certificate . The court established , inter alia , that the applicant and PERSON had attacked the victim and that they had been ready to attack GPE and GPE who had intervened .

The applicant 's lawyer appealed against ORG judgment . She challenged ORG refusal to summon witnesses ORG and ORG , finding that their statements could have been in favour of the applicant . She also complained that the findings of ORG had been incompatible with the factual circumstances , pointing out , inter alia , that the statements of those witnesses on which the court had relied had been contradictory . She requested that witnesses ORG and ORG be summoned to the court and that the applicant be acquitted in respect of the charge concerned .

On DATE a hearing at ORG ( ringkonnakohus ) took place . ORG was present in the courtroom . However , the court dismissed the applicant 's lawyer 's request that he be heard as a witness .

On DATE ORG delivered its judgment . It established that ORG had repeatedly sent summonses to the witnesses ORG and ORG Since the letters had been returned to ORG by the postal service , ORG concluded that the whereabouts of these witnesses had been unknown to ORG . It had been lawful for ORG to disclose their statements made during the preliminary investigation . As ORG had disclosed the statements and examined them at its hearing , it had used these statements as evidence in compliance with the law . ORG noted that the applicant 's lawyer had failed to specify , either before ORG or in her appeal , what information she would have wished to obtain from these witnesses . ORG rejected the appeal in respect of the alleged lack of evidence and incompatibility of ORG conclusions with the factual circumstances , relying on the statements of witness PERSON , given during the preliminary investigation and disclosed at ORG hearing , and the statements of witness ORG , given prior to the trial and confirmed by him at the hearing . ORG noted that ORG had rightly disregarded the statements of the accused . It also referred to the statements of GPE , given at ORG hearing , and to the forensic expert opinion . The court upheld ORG judgment in its relevant part in substance omitting , however , the element of hooliganism in the behaviour of the applicant and PERSON ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ) . The prosecutor 's appeal concerning the sentence was upheld in part and the applicant was sentenced to DATE imprisonment under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW .

The applicant 's lawyer lodged an appeal with ORG ( NORP ) . She again challenged ORG refusal to summon witnesses ORG and ORG , finding that the mere fact that the witnesses had not picked up the letters sent to them from the post office did not permit the conclusion that their place of residence had changed and that their whereabouts had been unknown to the court . She noted that ORG had not ordered the police to secure the attendance of the witnesses at the hearing .

ORG rejected the appeal on DATE . It held that ORG had failed to employ all possible means to guarantee the applicant a fair trial in accordance with LAW , in that ORG had failed to secure the witnesses ' attendance by ordering the police to compel them to appear in court ( sundtoomine ) . By disclosing the statements given by ORG and ORG during the preliminary investigation , without the applicant having had an opportunity to put questions to them , ORG had also failed to observe the requirements of LAW ( d ) . However , after having analysed at length the case - law of ORG , ORG found that there was no ground for quashing the judgments of ORG and ORG , since the conviction of the applicant had not been based entirely or to a decisive extent on the statements of witnesses ORG and ORG


No violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Witnesses);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence)

At DATE the applicant was questioned by the police about suspected dishonesty as a debtor . Subsequently , charges were brought against him . The trial before FAC ( käräjäoikeus , tingsrätten ) involved DATE of hearings . The court received testimony from the defendants , the complainants and CARDINAL witnesses . On CARDINAL May and DATE the prosecution presented documentary evidence , including some documents drawn up by a PERSON , who was working off - shore for a bank and who , in answer to a letter rogatory sent by ORG ( keskusrikospoliisi , centralkriminalpolisen ) to the GPE authorities , had produced documents ( including “ notes for archives ” pertaining to meetings on CARDINAL and DATE and charts ) related to a plan to transfer funds .

On DATE the applicant was convicted of CARDINAL counts of dishonesty as a debtor and CARDINAL counts of aggravated tax fraud . He was sentenced to DATE and DATE imprisonment . The ORG judgment ran to CARDINAL pages . In short and in so far as relevant , the court found on the basis of , inter alia , the testimonies of GPE , PERSON , the applicant and his brother and the documentary material , including the documents obtained from the GPE authorities , that the applicant and his brother had discussed the planned transfers of assets with PERSON It also found that the documentary evidence pertaining to the off - shore companies and the transfer of moneys proved that the assets acquired from the sale of the “ bank group ORG had been transferred via companies specified in PERSON 's charts to trusts , the beneficiaries of which the brothers had appointed . As both brothers had been present during the negotiations with PERSON on DATE and the plan to transfer funds had been proved to have materialised , the court found that they had acted together in , inter alia , removing the funds from GPE .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( hovioikeus , hovrätten ) . In his grounds of appeal he submitted , inter alia , that the documents drawn up by PERSON , resident in GPE , who had not been questioned during the pre - trial investigations or heard as a witness before ORG , should not have been taken into account as he had not had a possibility to respond to that important evidence .

In its decisions of CARDINAL and DATE ORG refused , as being unnecessary , the request of the applicant 's co - accused brother that PERSON be heard as a witness . It stated that it would provide further reasons in its judgment .

On DATE ORG held a preparatory hearing . The applicant 's brother unsuccessfully renewed the request for PERSON to be heard as a witness .

The first hearing took place on DATE . The parties and altogether CARDINAL witnesses gave oral evidence , of whom CARDINAL were fresh witnesses . The hearing of CARDINAL other proposed witnesses had been rejected .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of CARDINAL counts of dishonesty as a debtor , CARDINAL counts of aggravated tax fraud and CARDINAL counts of aiding and abetting accounting offences . It sentenced him to DATE and DATE imprisonment and ordered his immediate detention . He also lost his military rank .

As regarded the reasons for not hearing PERSON as a witness , the court held , inter alia , that :

“ ORG notes that no request to hear PERSON as a witness was made in ORG although the documents relating to the plan to transfer moneys from the “ bank group ORG , had been presented at the hearings of CARDINAL May and DATE ... Also [ the applicant 's brother , who was a co - defendant ] relied , as written evidence , on [ some ] documents drawn up by PERSON without requesting that PERSON be heard as a witness ...

The documents allegedly drawn up by PERSON have not been drawn up for the purposes of the pending proceedings . The import of the documents can be assessed without hearing him as a witness . The question whether it is necessary to hear him as a witness depends solely on whether such a hearing could produce relevant new information . In assessing this question ORG takes into account the fact that in the District Court PERSON was not proposed as a witness and the fact that the parties have been provided with an opportunity to put forward all their opinions concerning the content and reliability of the documents during the trial .

ORG notes that the documents in question have been requested by the public prosecutor and ORG by sending letters rogatory to the GPE authorities . ORG does not have any reason to suspect that the documents were drawn up by someone other than PERSON ...

The documents clearly indicate that there has been a deliberate conspiracy to transfer the assets acquired from the sale of the “ bank group ORG to companies established abroad and to invest the moneys . The transfer of assets has been conducted , as later explained in detail in chapter CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL , by order of ... [ the applicant and his co - accused brother ] . The question whether PERSON himself thought that he was involved only in legal investment activities is therefore not relevant .

The documents drawn up by PERSON are however relevant in assessing ... [ the applicant 's and his co - accused brother 's ] possible guilt of the offence of dishonesty as a debtor ... As becomes manifest in the reasons given in considering the charges , ORG has not however decided the matter basing itself entirely on the documents in question . The court has instead assessed the value of the documents in an overall context , [ in NORP kokonaisyhteydessä ] in which PERSON can not have anything relevant to say .

ORG has heard witness PERSON , as requested ... about the events relating to the documents . The testimony of PERSON , which in [ the applicant 's brother 's ] opinion proves the content of the discussions with PERSON , has thus been taken into account ... ORG holds that the requirements of a fair trial do not require that PERSON be heard as a witness either . ”

The Court of Appeal judgment ran to CARDINAL pages . In so far as relevant , the court principally endorsed ORG evaluation of the evidence .

The applicant sought leave to appeal . On DATE ORG ( korkein oikeus , högsta domstolen ) refused leave to appeal .

If an item of evidence that a party wishes to present pertains to a fact that is not material to the case or has already been proved , or if the fact can be proved in another manner with considerably less inconvenience or cost , the court may refuse to admit it ( LAW , LAW as amended by Act no . DATE ) of the Code of Judicial Procedure ) .

Chapter DATE , LAW , as in force at the relevant time , provided that a written statement drawn up for a pending or imminent trial , could not be used as evidence , unless specifically provided for by law or unless the court so decided for particular reasons .

Chapter DATE , LAW ( as amended by Act no . ORG ) , as in force at the relevant time , provided that ORG was to hold an oral hearing when necessary . LAW , LAW ( as amended by Act no . ORG ) , as in force at the relevant time , provided that ORG could not change a lower court 's conviction based on the evaluation of evidence without holding an oral hearing , unless the case concerned an offence punishable by fines only or unless an oral hearing was manifestly unnecessary , in particular taking into account the defendant 's need for legal protection .

The provisions concerning ORG duty to hold an oral hearing were amended ( Act no . PERSON ) with effect from CARDINAL DATE . The new provisions did not apply to criminal proceedings which had commenced prior to the entry into force of the new Code on Criminal Procedure ( laki oikeudenkäynnistä rikosasioissa , lagen om rättegång i brottmål ; Act no . CARDINAL ; in force from DATE ) . The afore - mentioned former provisions applied therefore to the instant case . The new LAW , LAW no . PERSON ) provides that ORG is to hold a hearing , regardless of whether one has been requested , if the decision in the matter turns on the credibility of the testimony received in ORG or on new testimony to be received in ORG . In this event , the evidence admitted in the ORG proceedings is to be readmitted in the principal hearing , unless there is an impediment to this .


Violation of Art. 6-1 (length of proceedings);Not necessary to examine Art. 13;Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant ’s son claimed that the maintenance which courts had earlier ordered the applicant to pay should be increased . The plaintiff submitted that his living costs had increased as he had started studying at a university .

On DATE the ORG heard the parties . On DATE it asked a tax office for information on the applicant ’s income . The tax office submitted the information on DATE .

In the course of DATE and DATE the parties made further submissions and the court obtained fresh information on the applicant ’s income .

The plaintiff did not appear before the court on DATE . The case was adjourned . Further documentary evidence was obtained in DATE .

On DATE the ORG ordered the applicant to pay DATE CARDINAL NORP korunas ( SKK ) to his son as from DATE . The applicant appealed on DATE . On DATE the applicant submitted another copy of his appeal and paid the court fee . The file was transferred to the appellate court on DATE .

On DATE the ORG quashed the first instance judgment to the extent that it had been challenged by the applicant . The appellate court found that the first instance court had failed to establish the relevant fact of the case and that it had acted contrary to the relevant provisions of LAW and of LAW . Reference was made , inter alia , to LAW .

On DATE ORG made an inquiry about the plaintiff ’s studies . On DATE the case had to be adjourned as both the plaintiff and the applicant had not appeared .

DATE and DATE ORG held CARDINAL hearings and it also obtained documentary evidence . On DATE the court decided to determine the applicant ’s income on the basis of an expert opinion which had been ordered in a different set of proceedings concerning the maintenance of the applicant ’s other son . On DATE ORG found that the opinion had not been submitted as the applicant had refused to co - operate with the expert .

On DATE the applicant proposed to settle the case . On CARDINAL DATE the plaintiff agreed to a settlement . However , the parties refused to settle the case at a hearing held on DATE . The case was adjourned . On DATE the court found that the applicant had not yet submitted the relevant documents to the expert in the context of the different set of proceedings .

On DATE the President of the ORG admitted , in reply to the applicant ’s complaint , that there had been delays in the proceedings after ORG had quashed the first instance judgment .

NORP In DATE and in DATE ORG asked for the file in the proceedings concerning the maintenance of the applicant ’s other son . The file could not be submitted to it as that case , which the first instance court had determined in the meantime even in the absence of an expert opinion , was pending before the appellate court .

On DATE the plaintiff modified the claim . He proposed that a criminal file against the applicant be examined by ORG .

On DATE a hearing was held . In DATE ORG obtained further evidence . Another hearing was held on DATE . The hearing scheduled for DATE had to be adjourned as the requested documentary evidence had not yet been submitted to the court .

On DATE the ORG ordered the applicant to pay ORG CARDINAL DATE to his son as from DATE . It further authorised the applicant to pay the arrears for the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE in DATE instalments of SKK CARDINAL . On DATE the applicant appealed . The plaintiff submitted his comments on DATE . The applicant submitted further reasons for his appeal on DATE .

On DATE ORG delivered a supplementary judgment by which it rejected the plaintiff ’s claim to the extent that it concerned the period from DATE .

NORP In DATE and in DATE ORG obtained further documentary evidence . The file was submitted to the appellate court on DATE .

The Košice Regional Court held hearings on DATE and on DATE . On the latter date it upheld the first instance decision ordering the applicant to pay LAW CARDINAL per month to his son . ORG held that that obligation covered the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . The decision on that issue became final on DATE .

ORG further quashed the first instance decision concerning the payment of the sums in arrears and the costs of the proceedings as further evidence needed to be obtained with a view to determining the issue . Reference was made to LAW .

On DATE ORG scheduled a hearing on the outstanding issue for DATE . On DATE the applicant challenged the ORG judge involved in the case .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request for exclusion of ORG judge . On DATE ORG issued a decision by which it rectified a clerical error in its decision of CARDINAL DATE .

A hearing before ORG was scheduled for DATE . It had to be adjourned as the judge was ill .

ORG heard the parties on DATE . On DATE it gave a judgment ordering the applicant to pay to his son the outstanding sum of SKK CARDINAL,CARDINAL for the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . It authorised the applicant to pay the sum in DATE instalments of SKK CARDINAL,CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant appealed and he submitted further reasons for his appeal on DATE . He alleged , in particular , that his son was not entitled to maintenance throughout the period in question . He further alleged that the courts should have taken into account that he had paid LAW to his son between DATE and DATE when the latter had studied at a different school .

On DATE the plaintiff also appealed .

The file was transmitted to the appellate court on DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE . It noted that the applicant ’s obligation to pay maintenance to his son had been determined in proceedings which had ended with ORG judgment of DATE . With reference to the documents included in the file the appellate court held that ORG had correctly determined both the sum which the applicant owed to the plaintiff and the DATE instalments for payment of that sum .

The appellate court ’s judgment with reasons was transmitted to ORG on DATE . ORG served it on the parties on DATE . On DATE the decision on the point in issue became final .

Article CARDINAL ) of the LAW provides , inter alia , that every person has the right to have his or her case tried without unjustified delay .

Pursuant to Article CARDINAL ) of the LAW , as in force until DATE , ORG could commence proceedings upon a petition ( “ podnet ” ) presented by any individual or a corporation claiming that their rights had been violated . According to its case - law under former Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , ORG lacked jurisdiction to draw legal consequences from a violation of a petitioner ’s rights under LAW ) of the LAW . It could neither grant damages to the person concerned nor impose a sanction on the public authority liable for the violation found . In ORG view , it was therefore for the authority concerned to provide redress to the person whose rights were violated .

As from DATE , the LAW has been amended in that , inter alia , individuals and legal persons can complain about a violation of their fundamental rights and freedoms pursuant to LAW . Under this provision ORG has the power , in the event that it finds a violation of Article CARDINAL ) of the LAW , to order the authority concerned to proceed with the case without delay . It may also grant adequate financial satisfaction to the person whose constitutional rights have been violated as a result of excessive length of proceedings ( for further details see , e.g. , ORG and Others v. GPE ( dec . ) , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , PERSON , DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE ) .

It has been ORG practice to entertain complaints about excessive length of proceedings only where the proceedings complained of are pending , at the moment when such complaints are lodged with it , before the authority liable for the alleged violation ( e.g. , decision PERSON . ÚS CARDINAL/CARDINAL , with further references , or decision PERSON . ÚS CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

The Government submitted to the ORG several decisions given by ORG DATE and DATE . In them ORG decided on complaints under LAW about the length of proceedings which had been filed in DATE . The complaints concerned proceedings before ordinary courts which had been brought prior to DATE .

Pursuant to LAW , the courts shall examine cases in co - operation with all participants so that the protection of rights is expeditious and effective and that the facts in dispute be reliably established .

Article CARDINAL ) provides that an appellate court shall quash the first instance decision , in particular , where the first instance judgment can not be reviewed either as being incomprehensible or for lack of reasons .


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 applicant was born in DATE in the vicinity of GPE in the north of GPE . She currently lives in GPE , GPE . She is of NORP ethnicity and NORP .

The applicant 's parents died in DATE and DATE .

On DATE , she married a GPE man who had lived in GPE since DATE and who returned to GPE to attend the wedding .

On DATE , under the rules on family reunification , ORG ) granted the applicant a residence permit to join her husband in GPE . Accordingly , on DATE the applicant entered the country on a valid passport issued on DATE .

DATE , on DATE , ORG decided to withdraw the applicant 's residence permit on the ground that the applicant and her husband had separated . This decision was confirmed by ORG ( NORP for PERSON , ORG ) on DATE and the applicant was ordered to leave GPE no later than DATE . The applicant did not challenge this decision before the ordinary courts .

On DATE the applicant applied for asylum in GPE . In support of her application she submitted that her marriage had been arranged , and that once she had arrived in GPE her husband had taken her passport and been abusive by beating her and depriving her of food . After DATE , she had fled to a women 's shelter . By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE her husband was convicted of abuse and sentenced to DATE imprisonment . Her passport had been returned . Subsequently , on CARDINAL occasion when she had seen him on the street , he had threatened to kill her . He came from a wealthy family in GPE with good connections to the authorities and the military and she was afraid that he had told GPE authorities DATE as a soldier for ORG , hereafter the ORG . She had participated and been injured in battle . Having contracted malaria , in DATE she had had to leave the organisation . DATE , she had moved around because of the instability in the country . In DATE she had settled in GPE where she had worked as a carer for an elderly gentleman . In DATE she had met her husband and agreed to marry him to secure her future . She had a sister in GPE but had heard no news from her since the tsunami in DATE . She had no other relatives in her home country .

By a judgment of DATE the applicant was convicted for CARDINAL incidents of malicious damage to her husband 's car and flat , and sentenced to DATE fines .

On DATE ORG rejected her application for asylum . It found that the grounds invoked by the applicant were not such that she would face a real risk of persecution or ill - treatment if returned to GPE .

On appeal to ORG ( PERSON ) , the applicant explained , among other things , that her mother died when she was DATE and her father died when she was DATE . After her father 's death she had been sent to a boarding school . She could only stay at school until she turned DATE . She did not have any relatives or others with whom she could stay . When she was DATE , she had joined the ORG . She had been in combat on CARDINAL occasions when she was DATE and had been hit by shell splinters . Consequently she had a small shell splinter under the skin by her left eye and part of CARDINAL finger was missing . The ORG had accepted that she leave the organisation after she contracted malaria . She married on DATE , in GPE . Her husband was an ethnic NORP resident in GPE . Prior to her entry into GPE she became pregnant . Her spouse 's family took her to a clinic and forced her to have an illegal abortion . Her spouse 's family treated her very badly prior to her entry into GPE . Her spouse was an alcoholic and beat her every day . After she left her spouse , he had threatened to have her sent back to GPE where she would end up in the street . If she were to return to her country of origin she feared her former spouse 's family who lived in GPE . She had neither family members nor a place to stay in GPE . Her former spouse 's family had a good relationship with the GPE army . She also feared the authorities , should she return to GPE , as persons who had been attached to the NORP were not allowed to leave the country without the permission of the authorities . She feared that her former spouse would inform the Sri NORP authorities about her return and that she would be arrested at the airport as a result . On the basis of her scars the authorities would be able to conclude that she had been attached to the NORP .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG refused to grant the applicant asylum . It first noted that the applicant had arrived in GPE on a passport which was still valid and that she had had no problems with the authorities before she left GPE .

The fact that she had been a member of the NORP at a very young age could not in itself justify the granting of asylum . Moreover , she had not held any prominent position in the organisation and her attachment to the NORP ended after she had developed malaria . She had had no problems with the NORP since she left in DATE and she had not in any way attracted attention to herself .

Finally , the applicant 's problems with her former husband were of a private nature and there was no indication that the Sri NORP authorities would be unable or unwilling to help and protect her if necessary .

In conclusion , ORG therefore found that on her return to GPE she would not run any particular risk of persecution within the scope of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , or any real risk of outrages within the scope of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant 's request to reconsider the case finding that no new essential information or aspects had been added to the case . The fact that on DATE the ORG had requested ORG to suspend the return of NORP from northern and eastern GPE had not given rise to a general suspension of the return of ethnic NORP to northern and eastern GPE , and ORG did not find either that it should give rise to a postponement of the time - limit for the applicant .

By a court order of CARDINAL DATE the applicant divorced . It appears that shortly thereafter the applicant married a NORP man who lived in GPE . Their daughter was born on DATE .

In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant again requested a reopening of her asylum case . In support she referred to the fact , inter alia , that the Sri NORP authorities had issued a birth certificate to her in DATE . Her friends had arranged for the certificate to be issued and had subsequently sent it to her in GPE . The authorities in GPE were thus aware of what she had told the NORP authorities in connection with her asylum application . She also referred to the fact that she had contracted a NORP marriage with a NORP man during her residence in GPE . She finally referred to her pregnancy and to having been hospitalised in GPE on DATE due to dehydration . By a letter of DATE she added that she had fled the NORP in DATE and hidden with her future husband 's brother in PERSON . From there she had gone to GPE to stay with her future husband 's sister . Subsequently , she heard that on several occasions members of the ORG had approached her brother - in - law in order to find her . Furthermore , the ORG had detained one of her brother - in - law 's children for DATE . She had only learned about this later on . Finally , her former spouse refused to return her national identity papers to her ; instead , he had passed her identity card to the Sri NORP army . She had received this information recently . Consequently , the military was waiting to arrest her in GPE where she was wanted . If she succeeded in going to PERSON she would be arrested by the NORP .

On DATE , ORG again refused to reopen the asylum case , finding that no essential new information or aspects had been added in relation to the information which had been available when the case was considered by ORG in the first place . ORG did not find it probable that the Sri NORP authorities had become acquainted with the applicant 's statements given to the NORP immigration authorities since that information was private and covered by the regulations of LAW ( straffeloven ) concerning the professional secrecy of public authorities . The fact that the applicant was pregnant and had married in GPE had no bearing on her asylum case and therefore could not lead to a different evaluation of the matter . Her statement about recently having learnt that her former brother - in - law had been approached by the ORG seemed unreliable , notably because during the original asylum case hearing before ORG she had stated that she left the NORP because she had developed malaria . Consequently , this “ new ” information could not be taken into account . ORG could not take into account either the statement that her former spouse had passed on her identity card to the Sri NORP authorities as this information had been submitted at DATE and seemed fabricated for the occasion . Her problems with her former spouse were of a private law nature and thus could not lead to a different evaluation of her asylum case .

By letter of DATE , once more the applicant requested that her case be reopened and submitted in support thereof a letter from ORG to GPE dated DATE requesting the latter to suspend the return of all NORP to GPE , and an e - mail of DATE concerning the suspension of deportation cases in GPE on the basis of the above - mentioned letter .

On DATE , ORG again refused to reopen the asylum case . It stated that it was acquainted with the letter of DATE but found that the letter alone could not bring about a general suspension of cases concerning GPE nationals of NORP ethnicity . Nevertheless , the letter and the ORG 's recommendations formed part of the background material on GPE which was available to ORG and which was a constituent part of the basis for the ORG 's decisions .

On DATE , upon the applicant 's request , 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 applicant should not be expelled to GPE pending the ORG 's decision .

On DATE , ORG refused the applicant 's application for a residence permit on humanitarian grounds under section CARDINALb(CARDINAL ) of LAW .

On DATE the applicant 's passport expired .

On DATE , referring to the deterioration in the security situation in GPE and ORG the international Protection Needs of Asylum - Seekers from GPE from DATE , the applicant requested that ORG reopen her asylum case .

On DATE , anew , ORG refused her request , concluding as follows :

“ ... In DATE , ORG received ORG from GPE from DATE , which have been included in the background material of ORG . In addition , ORG has subsequently added the following reports to its background material : ORG , War on the Displaced , Sri Lankan Army and ORG , Abuses against NORP in the GPE , DATE ; GPE , ORG , GPE ORG , ORG Report - GPE , DATE ; ORG , DATE ORG : GPE , DATE ; GPE , ORG , GPE ORG , Operational Guidance Note - GPE , DATE ; and GPE , ORG , GPE ORG , Operational Guidance Note , DATE .

It should be noted in that respect that ORG makes its decisions in asylum proceedings upon a concrete and individual assessment of the individual asylum - seeker 's statement about his asylum motive compared with the background information available at any time about the conditions in the asylum - seeker 's country of origin . It should also be noted that , as appears from ORG . v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , ORG places substantial emphasis on the information of ORG about the situation in GPE . The Position Papers are necessarily broadly phrased and contain general descriptions about the varying risks for each of GPE ethnic groups . The views expressed in the Position Papers can not in themselves be conclusive evidence for the assessment by the national authorities or ORG the risk for ethnic NORP returning to GPE .

ORG observes that the general conditions for ethnic NORP from northern GPE , including single women , do not in themselves justify asylum . It should be noted in that connection that ORG stated in ORG . v. GPE ( quoted above , LAW that , in the assessment of ORG , the deterioration in the security situation and the increase in human rights violations in GPE did not create a general risk to all NORP returning to GPE . The ORG further observed in § CARDINAL that both the assessment of the risk to ethnic NORP of certain profiles and the assessment of whether individual acts of harassment would cumulatively amount to a serious violation of human rights could only be made on an individual basis .

Your statement to the effect that your client may risk having an explanatory problem upon her arrival at GPE as a consequence of the scars acquired by her in connection with military operations against the government forces does not lead to a revised assessment of the case . In this respect , ORG refers to ORG written observations of CARDINAL DATE stating that your client had not been detained or subjected to outrages or to other acts contrary to LAW before her departure as opposed to the applicant in ORG . v. GPE . Nor had your client been recorded by the authorities in connection with detention , or photographed , fingerprinted or anything else so that the authorities might be presumed to know of her , and therefore your client could not be considered to be at risk of being subjected to outrages or other acts contrary to LAW upon her arrival at FAC in the same way as the applicant in the above judgment .

Nor does your statement about your client 's affiliation with the NORP until DATE and not , as originally stated , until DATE , when your client left the NORP because she contracted malaria , lead to a revised assessment of the case . It should be noted in that connection that the new information appeared at a very late stage of the asylum proceedings after your client had been refused asylum , having had several opportunities to provide this information without having done so . ORG still finds that there is no reasonable explanation for her changed statement .

In that connection , ORG has also placed some emphasis on the fact that your client only applied for asylum in GPE DATE and DATE after her entry into GPE and only after her residence permit under the family reunification rules had been revoked and she therefore had to leave GPE .

Concerning your statement about your client suspecting her former spouse or his family of having disclosed information to the Sri NORP authorities about her , it should be noted that ORG finds that it has not been rendered probable that the Sri NORP authorities have gained knowledge of your client 's statements to the NORP immigration authorities . In this respect , it should be noted that the information given by your client in connection with the asylum proceedings is comprised by the rules of LAW on the duty of confidentiality of public authorities .

The fact that your client was married at a religious ceremony in GPE and has given birth to a daughter is not relevant under asylum law and thus does not lead to a revised assessment of the case either .

Against this background , ORG fully relies on its decisions of CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE .

No time - limit for departure is fixed as , on DATE , ORG suspended your client 's time - limit for departure for the time being . ”

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

On DATE ORG refused to reopen the applicant 's case as 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 observes that as her asylum motive your client has stated , inter alia , that , in case of return , she fears outrages committed by the NORP because she left without permission . She also fears the Sri NORP military forces . Due to the injuries incurred by her during military operations , she fears that the Sri NORP army will suspect her of being a member of the NORP . Moreover , your client fears that her former family - in - law , with whom she is on bad terms and who live in GPE and have good connections with the GPE military forces , have informed on her to the GPE authorities and that she will therefore be unable to enter the country without becoming an object of interest to the authorities . Her former spouse living in GPE has her ID card , and she fears that he will travel to GPE and do something that may harm her . Finally , your client has stated that , as a single woman without family or social network , she will be unable to manage in her country of origin .

By decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG stated , inter alia , that your client had left GPE in possession of her own national passport without problems and that she had not , prior to her departure , been subjected to outrages or the like of a nature to warrant asylum . ORG found that the fact that your client was affiliated with the ORG as a child soldier when very young did not in itself warrant granting asylum . In that connection , ORG emphasised the length of the time passed and the fact that your client was deemed not to have made herself stand out in any way . Moreover , the ORG found that the general situation for single women in GPE could not justify granting a residence permit under section CARDINAL of LAW . The ORG observed that your client 's problems with her former spouse were of a private law nature and therefore recommended that she seek the protection of the authorities in case of conflicts . ORG finally found that it had not been rendered probable that your client would be unable to seek the protection of the authorities and that therefore the information on her former family - in - law could not lead to a revised assessment .

ORG still finds that your client 's fear of the NORP and the Sri NORP authorities and the conflict with her former family - in - law do not warrant a residence permit under section CARDINAL of LAW .

In that connection , ORG refers to your client 's statement during the asylum proceedings to the effect that she did not have any problems with the ORG at any time prior to her departure , including in connection with her leaving the NORP . On the contrary , she stated that the NORP accepted her leaving the organisation . ORG observes that DATE have passed since your client left the ORG , and therefore the ORG can not find as a fact that former ORG members would pursue her because she had left the country without permission from the NORP .

Additionally , the GPE military forces defeated the NORP in DATE . Moreover , it appears from the background information available to ORG that it is hardly likely that former low - ranking members of the ORG or persons who have previously supported the ORG will risk reprisals from the NORP , see GPE , Operational Guidance Note , GPE , DATE .

The possibility that as an ethnic NORP from northern GPE your client risks being questioned and investigated by the authorities upon entry into her country of origin does not lead to a revised assessment of the case under asylum law . 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 .

Similarly , although your client risks being detained at the airport , ORG finds that this can not warrant asylum . In that connection , the ORG refers to your client 's statement during the asylum proceedings to the effect that she was an ordinary , rank - and - file member of the ORG and that she has not had any conflicts with the Sri NORP authorities at any time , or been registered in any way . She departed lawfully from GPE in possession of her own GPE national passport for the purpose of family reunification in GPE . Moreover , DATE have passed since your client carried out activities for the ORG . Against that background , ORG finds that it has not been rendered probable that the Sri Lankan authorities would take a special interest in your client upon return , regardless of her scars .

In this connection , ORG refers to the fact that it appears from the background material available to ORG that , in general , individuals who have supported the ORG on a lower level are not of interest to the authorities . Thus , generally , only high - profile members of the NORP who are still active and wanted , or individuals wanted for serious criminal offences are of interest to the authorities , see GPE ORG , Operational Guidance Note , GPE , DATE , and ORG to GPE , GPE CARDINAL DATE .

Your client has also stated that her former family - in - law has good connections with the Sri NORP army and that she has reason to believe that the family has informed on her to the Sri NORP authorities . ORG does not consider this information a fact . The information is thus not substantiated in detail , and your client has not given a more accurate account of which member of her former family - in - law is involved and when that member has allegedly spoken to the authorities about your client .

Nor does ORG find that the fact that your client 's former spouse has taken your client 's ORG card from her , and that she will have to have her national passport renewed and might thereby attract attention to herself , can lead to any other assessment .

As in the previous decisions in the case , ORG still finds that the general situation in GPE is not of such nature as to warrant in itself the grant of a residence permit under section CARDINAL of LAW .

Thus , ORG fully relies on the decisions of CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . Against that background , the ORG still finds that it has not been rendered probable that , in case of return to GPE , your client would be at concrete and individual risk of persecution as covered by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , or that your client would be at a real risk of outrages as covered by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW .

It should be noted that your client 's time - limit for departure is still suspended until further notice on the basis of the request of DATE from ORG .

If your client 's lawful stay in GPE lapses , she must leave the country immediately , see section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . As appears from the decision of ORG of DATE , your client may be forcibly returned to GPE if she does not leave voluntarily , see section GPE , cf . section CARDINAL , of LAW .

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 CARDINAL , 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 .

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 .

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 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 .

Human Rights Watch , 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 NORP 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 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 NORP High Commission 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 .

The ORG reported in DATE that the NORP 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 .