Source
NA. V. The United Kingdom, Press release, European Court of Human Rights, 17 July 2008.

Extracts
The applicant was born in 1975 in Sri Lanka. He currently lives in London. He is an ethnic Tamil. He entered the United Kingdom clandestinely on 17 August 1999 and claimed asylum the next day on the grounds that he feared ill-treatment in Sri Lanka by the Sri Lankan army and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). … He explained that he had been arrested and detained by the army on six occasions between 1990 and 1997 on suspicion of involvement with the Tigers. … He feared the Tigers because his father had done some work for the army. They had also tried to recruit him on two occasions in 1997 and 1998. …

The risk to Tamils returning to Sri Lanka
It was accepted by the parties to the case that there had been a deterioration in the security situation in Sri Lanka. However, the United Kingdom authorities, while recognising this deterioration and the corresponding increase in human rights violations, had not concluded that this created a general risk to all Tamils returning to Sri Lanka. Nor had the applicant in the present case sought to challenge that conclusion in his submissions. The Court saw no reason to reach a different conclusion.

Moreover the Court also found that the United Kingdom authorities had given serious and anxious consideration to the risk to Tamils returning to Sri Lanka. They had examined all the relevant objective evidence and, just as importantly, considered the appropriate weight to be given to it.

In the Court’s view, both the assessment of the risk to Tamils of certain profiles and the assessment of whether individual acts of harassment cumulatively amounted to a serious violation of human rights could only be done on an individual basis.

It was moreover in principle legitimate, when assessing the individual risk to returnees, to carry out that assessment on the basis of the list of “risk factors”, which the United Kingdom authorities, with the benefit of direct access to objective information and expert evidence, had drawn up.

The assessment of whether there was a real risk had to be made on the basis of all relevant factors which might increase the risk of ill-treatment. It was also possible that a number of individual factors which when they were considered separately did not constitute a real risk might, when taken cumulatively and when considered in a situation of general violence and heightened security, give rise to such a real risk.

The Court found that the information before it pointed to the systematic torture and ill-treatment by the Sri Lankan authorities of Tamils who would be of interest to them in their efforts to combat the Tamil Tigers.
In respect of returns to Sri Lanka through Colombo, the Court also found that there was a greater risk of detention and interrogation at the airport than in Colombo city. Hence the Court’s assessment of whether a returnee was at real risk of ill-treatment might turn on whether that person would be likely to be detained and interrogated at Colombo airport as someone of interest to the authorities. As regards the procedures followed at Columbo airport, the Court considered that at the very least the Sri Lankan authorities had the technological means and procedures in place to identify at the airport failed asylum seekers and those who were wanted by the authorities.

The risk to the applicant
As regards the alleged risk to the applicant from the Tamil Tigers, the Court accepted the domestic authorities’ assessment that while there might be a risk to Tamils in Colombo from Tamil Tigers, this would be only to Tamils with a high profile as opposition activists, or those seen as renegades or traitors. The applicant would therefore not be at real risk of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 by the Tigers if returned to Colombo.

In assessing the applicant’s position in relation to the Sri Lankan authorities, the Court examined the strength of the applicant’s claim to be at real risk as a result of an accumulation of the risk factors identified by the domestic authorities. However, compared with the last factual assessment made by the national authorities, it did so in the light of more recent developments and in particular having due regard to the deterioration of the security situation in Sri Lanka and the corresponding increase in general violence and heightened security. In addition it took a cumulative approach to all possible risk factors identified by the applicant as applicable to his case. …

In conclusion, the Court took note of the current climate of general violence in Sri Lanka and considered cumulatively the factors present in the applicant’s case. In the light of its finding that those considered by the authorities to be of interest in their efforts to combat the Tigers were systematically exposed to torture and ill-treatment, it took the view that there was a real risk that the authorities at Colombo airport would be able to access the records relating to the applicant’s detention. If they did so, when taken cumulatively with the other risk factors identified by the applicant, it was likely that he would be detained and strip-searched. This in turn would lead to the discovery of his scars. On this basis, the Court found that there were substantial grounds for finding that the applicant would be of interest to the Sri Lankan authorities in their efforts to combat the Tigers. In those circumstances, the Court found that at the present time there would be a violation of Article 3 if the applicant were to be returned.

Related events
8 August 2007
29 October 2007

Sources
House of Commons Hansard Debates, Part 9, Daily Hansard, 2 May 2007; House of Commons Hansard Debates, part 14, Daily Hansard, 2 May 2007.

Extracts from Parliamentary debate, Daily Hansard, 2 May 2007
The Minister for the Middle East (Dr. Kim Howells):

“I am pleased to have this opportunity today to debate the current situation in Sri Lanka, and I am grateful to the right hon. and hon. Members present for their interest in this important issue. There has been mounting concern about the continuing violence and tragic displacement of people from their homes on that beautiful island. I want the House to know that this debate is the result of _expressions of concern from right hon. and hon. Members. It is not, as some propagandists and partisan elements have claimed, a debate generated by any faction of Sri Lankan politics or by any lobbying organisations claiming to represent any part of the large Sri Lankan diaspora residing in Britain, pro or anti-LTTE.

“Sadly, those commitments remain unfulfilled. We have over the past year seen worsening violence. Extra-judicial killings, disappearances, intimidation and violence by paramilitary groups are all too common. The violence has fuelled an atmosphere of extreme mistrust and polarisation, which has fuelled further antagonism and violence. Innocent civilians have borne the brunt. There are now more than 100,000 displaced persons in the eastern district of Batticaloa and hundreds more arrive every day. There have been more than 700 cases of missing persons in the Jaffna peninsular, and nearly 500 are still unresolved. There have been more than 50 abductions in Colombo in the past year, and nine media workers have lost their lives in recent months. In the past few weeks, bus bombings have killed dozens of people simply going about their daily business. These are despicable terrorist acts that are totally without justification.

“The responsibility of the LTTE for violent acts over the years is well documented. It is a proscribed organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000. The EU listed the LTTE as a terrorist organisation in May 2006. We have repeatedly urged the LTTE to move away from the path of violence. In the absence of a full renunciation of terrorism in deed and word, there can be no question of reconsidering its proscribed status. LTTE involvement in killings, torture, detention of civilians and denial of freedom of speech is a reality. The LTTE does not tolerate any _expression of opposition and its continuing recruitment of child soldiers is a matter of great concern. …

“The ability of the LTTE to raise funds overseas helps to sustain its ability to carry out violent acts and reduces the incentive to move way from the path of violence. …

“LTTE fundraising activity in the United Kingdom encourages war, not peace. It will not be tolerated, and I have recently met our security authorities to discuss how we can counter the bullying, threats and acts of fraud that are used regularly to extract money from the Tamil population and others in the country. …

“The LTTE is not the only source of violence in Sri Lanka, however. Civilians in Government-controlled areas regularly fall victim to brutal attacks by paramilitary groups, often acting with apparent immunity. Reports of the Government’s links with the faction led by Karuna, a former LTTE commander, concern us a great deal. We believe Karuna and his faction to be responsible for extra-judicial killings, abductions, intimidation of displaced persons and child recruitment. Karuna’s record is appalling, and we will be watching very closely whether he acts on his commitment to the United Nations to address the child recruitment issue. We will want to see clear evidence that he has delivered against his welcome promises. Karuna needs to go further and cease all acts of violence and intimidation against civilians. …

“There must be no question of the Government of Sri Lanka allowing Karuna to perpetrate those crimes. If they are serious in their desire to find paths to an inclusive, peaceful Sri Lanka that embraces all its peoples and cultures, they must disassociate themselves completely from all acts of abuse, terrorism, intimidation or torture, no matter who commits them or what agency encourages them.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) (Con):

“Is the Minister aware of the comment made by the FBI assistant director in charge, who said: “Karuna hasn’t merely supported the LTTE cause, he has orchestrated support in the US”? Before the Minister concludes his speech, will he answer two questions? First, what international co-ordination is there on intelligence to stop fundraising for the LTTE? Secondly, is there similar co-ordination to ensure that people such as Karuna, who have committed acts of terrorism, are brought to justice?”

Dr. Howells:

“The hon. Gentleman is right: the list of crimes by this faction is long. We have been exchanging intelligence with a number of agencies in other countries. He will know that I cannot go into detail about that matter, although I can say that lately intelligence has indicated that there may be widespread fraud scams in the country. We are not certain about that, but they may be one of the sources of funding, at least part of which finds its way back to the LTTE and acts of terrorism.”

Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire) (Con):

“I intervened on the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) to inquire about the LTTE’s commitment to democracy. Perhaps I did not explain myself clearly. I have severe reservations about whether the LTTE is seriously committed to a democratic process. Its leader is on the record as wanting to establish a one-party independent Tamil state without democratic elections. I see in the LTTE an organisation that is led by a very dangerous individual whose techniques and ruthlessness have caused great concern. Although I share the views expressed by all hon. and right hon. Members in saying that dialogue is important, I question whether the LTTE is an organisation that is capable of holding such dialogue. I hope that I am wrong; I would like to be so. In an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold, I pointed out that our deputy high commissioner in Sri Lanka will tomorrow be engaging in dialogue with the political wing of the LTTE. I hope that that dialogue is profitable and constructive, but I worry about what we are dealing with in the LTTE. It is a sophisticated and well equipped organisation, uniquely so for a terrorist organisation—and I regard it as a terrorist organisation that can fight on land, on sea and in the air, although it is wrong to describe it as having an air force; I think that there is one light aircraft — I am told that there are five aircraft, but they have significantly enhanced its fighting capabilities.”

Mr. Clifton-Brown:

“We all recognise that India’s involvement in this problem is very sensitive, as well as what happened in the past when it became involved militarily. Nevertheless, as the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) pointed out, there is a big Tamil population in Tamil Nadu, and there is a suspicion that a lot of support of one kind or another, particularly financial, comes from that state. if we are to try to defeat this terrorist problem, it is important that the international community should include the Indian Government in discussions and intelligence-sharing.”

Peter Luff:

“I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. I sincerely hope that that process is already happening. Fundraising is an important issue for the LTTE. Two Tamil fundraisers were recently prosecuted in Australia, which is causing great controversy in the Tamil community there. The purposes of their fundraising activity must be properly established by due judicial process in Australia. It is unhelpful to see people who are, I am sure, perfectly honourable Tamil nationalists attacking the Australian Government for daring to challenge those people’s fundraising activities. When I think of the recent protests in Paris and Zurich by Tamil communities in France and Switzerland, I worry about the presumption that anyone who dares to attack the LTTE is in some sense attacking the Tamil people. I do not see that connection. Similarly, those who dared to attack Sinn Fein were not attacking the Catholic cause in Northern Ireland. …

“The fact is that violence is always wrong morally, and also politically, because it never produces the outcome that one seeks. When we attack the LTTE for its violence, we are doing so for sound reasons. It is in the Tamil people’s own interests that the LTTE abandon its violence. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey that the blame is far from being on one side. I have here the Human Rights Watch report on human rights in Sri Lanka, which graphically details the shortcomings of the LTTE and of the Sri Lankan Government.”

Keith Vaz (Leicester, East) (Lab):

“But if an organisation remains proscribed and isolated, how can it participate in a dialogue that could bring peace to Sri Lanka?”

Peter Luff:

“That is a conundrum. I have to say that I support the Government in allowing the organisation to remain proscribed. It is difficult to see how an organisation that takes part in such abhorrently violent activities—for example, it uses child soldiers as part of its campaign of violence—can be anything other than proscribed. The LTTE has an opportunity to demonstrate a much greater understanding of the challenges that that poses to Governments such as ours. I would welcome it were the Government able to lift that restriction, but I do not see how they can in the current environment. …

“I do not want Sri Lanka to become a political issue in the United Kingdom through the presence of a significant diaspora. That diaspora is here because of the violence. Its members have been driven away from their island and are effectively refugees from that dreadful violence. It is a wonderful community, which does a huge amount for us. Estimates of its size vary between 150,000 and 200,000. Reference has been made to the work its members offer on petrol station forecourts, but they do much more than that. A phenomenally high proportion of the Tamil community—some 2,500—work as doctors in the national health service. They do a great deal for us and we should be grateful to them. …

“I note that the Archbishop of Canterbury is visiting Sri Lanka next week. The Christian community in that country suffers considerable persecution at the hands of the Government. …

“The current edition of the Foreign Office human rights report mentions Sri Lanka’s anti-conversion laws and moves: “to consolidate the position of Buddhism by constitutional amendment and legislation that would control ‘unethical conversion’, in part through criminal sanctions. The bill, which appears to undermine the guarantees of religious freedom enshrined in the Sri Lankan constitution and to be inconsistent with Sri Lanka’s international human rights obligations, is still being debated.”

“Things may have moved on since the report was written. It continues by saying that: “there have been consistent and credible reports of harassment, intimidation, destruction of property and occasional violence against Christians over the last three years… Sri Lankan authorities’ lack of capacity to protect Christians and members of other faiths, and their failure to prosecute those responsible for inciting and committing violent acts” are highlighted. That is an especially worrying example of human rights abuses in Sri Lanka that are firmly at the door of the Sri Lankan Government. For even-handedness, we must understand that there are problems on both sides. We must be careful about imposing—or being seen to or wishing to impose—specific solutions to any internal conflict in a sovereign state from these Benches in the United Kingdom. However, we need to convey a clear message that terror begets only terror, and violence begets violence. That is an iron rule of politics and history. In a world hungry for peace, as we all are now, it is my view that if the LTTE could bring itself to renounce its terrorist activities and take the first brave steps to peace, it would find that respectability would follow remarkably quickly on the heels of such a brave and right decision.

Keith Vaz:

“I want to pay a special tribute to the Minister for the Middle East. This date was originally chosen for a discussion between him and more than 60 MPs who had shown an interest in Sri Lankan issues, particularly in what is happening to the Tamil community. I think that he was surprised at the level of interest and he decided, of his own volition, to put to the Leader of the House the view that there should be a debate today. That has proved to be a much better way of dealing with these matters—having an open debate involving as many MPs as possible on the Floor of the House. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). In all my discussions with members of the British Tamil community, I have found that they are full of praise for the work that he has done. As we heard today, he has not taken sides on the issues, but has focused the British Government on a particular problem. I am grateful—and I think that we are all grateful—for the fact that he has brought to bear his vast experience of Northern Ireland, which must have been just as complicated as the situation in Sri Lanka. Apart from his day job, which he mentioned, he has allowed himself to go over to Sri Lanka in order to be the eyes and ears of our Prime Minister and to report back on these issues. I hope that we can formalise his role. [Mr Murphy] may not want that, but I think that it would be a good idea if the Government looked to formalise his role so that it was no longer just on an ad hoc basis. He could be given formal envoy status, which would allow him to play the role that we all would like to see this Parliament get involved with.

“On Monday, we established the House’s first ever all-party Tamil group. I was privileged to be elected chair of the group; the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) was elected vice-chair; the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling) was elected secretary; the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) was elected treasurer, as was the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), in his absence in Scotland. That shows that it really is an all-party group, because all parties are represented in this cause.

“The group was determined not to be just like any other all-party group. We were determined to take the issue forward, and on that basis we agreed three things. First, at the end of September a delegation of all party members should visit Sri Lanka, particularly areas under the control of the Tamil Tigers, to engage in a dialogue in a positive and constructive way. We also agreed to invite the chief negotiator for the Tamil Tigers to visit the United Kingdom and to come to Parliament so that we could hear his views on what is happening.

“The third thing that we agreed was to hold a summit meeting here in July at which all the various parties could participate as a means of exploring how to take the issue forward. Although we have not had a debate of this kind in the House before, listening to the experience of so many right hon. Members and hon. Members reminds me that we have had many such discussions outside Parliament. It really is time to make progress, rather than simply discussing these issues from time to time as we do now.

“My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) pointed out that we are also concerned with the Tamil community here, and that that is what drives us. Many of us are interested in foreign affairs, but what drives us as constituency MPs is our constituents coming to see us in our surgeries, at public meetings and at various projects in our constituencies to point out the contribution that the British Tamil community has made. When my hon. Friend mentioned the Tooting Tamils, I thought that that made them sound so British that they could be a local football club. They are as British as you and I, Madam Deputy Speaker, and they make a full contribution to this country. They contribute to the economy and to the national health service, as the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire pointed out. Almost 2,500 Tamils work in the NHS, not just as GPs and other doctors; one of the leading pre-natal surgeons is based in a hospital in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting.

“The British Tamils have become first-class contributors, and they therefore deserve to have us debate these issues in the House. For the reasons mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey, they are constantly aware of what is happening to their friends and relatives in Sri Lanka. That is why they deserve to hear these issues discussed, and to have them taken forward, rather than just discussed in the usual parliamentary way.
“I was present at a very useful meeting that the British Tamil Forum had with our Home Secretary, who reminded us of the phrase—I cannot remember who said it originally, but I am sure that someone here will know—“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. I am sure that it was not the Home Secretary’s phrase; he was merely reminding us of it. This was in the context of a discussion on how to lift the ban. I firmly believe that the ban on the Tamil Tigers—certainly as regards the way in which they operate in this country—should be lifted as soon as possible.

“The proscription by the Government of various organisations in 2001 happened because of certain events that were occurring worldwide at the time, and we reacted by imposing that ban on a number of organisations, including a Sikh organisation that operated from my constituency. I know that Governments sometimes have to react in a knee-jerk manner, but six years have now passed and it is time to reconsider the ban and to look at ways in which we can help to ensure that the dialogue proceeds.”

Related events
May 2007
19 April 2007

Related events
29 May 2006
4 September 2002
28 February 2001
26 January 1998
8 October 1997
14 May 1992

Sources and quotations

“Eye witnesses and victims reported that on the streets cars were stopped by gangs and the people inside were asked whether they were Sinhalese or Tamil. Some Sinhalese words are extremely difficult for people who do not speak the language fluently to pronounce, people were tested by being made to pronounce these words. The mobs were also demanding to see identity cards to establish whether or not people were Tamils… People identified as Tamils as a result of the questioning were told to get out of their cars and their cars were set alight… In cases where any resistance was offered, killings were likely to take place… It was reported by many people that in some instances students from Buddhist schools followed on behind the first rioters and that some Buddhist monks were seen amongst the gangs.” Patricia Hyndman, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of New South Wales and Secretary, Lawasia Human Rights Standing Committee Report – Democracy in Peril, June 1985.

“A tourist told yesterday how she watched in horror as a Sinhala mob deliberately burned alive a bus load of Tamils… Mrs. Eli Skarstein, back home in Stavanger, Norway, told how she and her 15 year old daughter, Kristin, witnessed one massacre. “A mini bus full of Tamils were forced to stop in front of us in Colombo” she said. A Sinhalese mob poured petrol over the bus and set it on fire. They blocked the car door and prevented the Tamils from leaving the vehicle. “Hundreds of spectators watched as about 20 Tamils were burned to death”. Mrs. Skarstein added: “We cannot believe the official casualty figures. Hundreds may be thousands must have been killed already.” London Daily Express, 29th August 1983.

“Considerably more people died during the recent violence in Sri Lanka than the 380 deaths the government there has admitted to, according to an aid organisation. Dr. Sjef Teuns, General Secretary of Novib, the leading private development aid organisation in the Netherlands, said between 1000 and 2000 people lost their lives. He returned to Netherland on Saturday. He accused the Sri Lanka government of serious human rights violations against the Tamil population and called the Dutch government to reconsider its development aid policy towards the country.” The Times of London, 22 August 1983.

“Our view is that the July holocaust was a pre-planned, well-orchestrated genocidal pogrom against the Tamils, carried out by the racial elements of the ruling party. Initially, these racist elements did attempt to put the whole blame on the LTTE. Then, suddenly, they blamed the left parties for the riots. But in fact, it is the racist leaders of the present government who should take responsibility for this tragic loss of life.” Velupillai Pirapaharan, Leader of Tamil Eelam in an interview with Anita Pratap, March 1984.

“It is relevant to mention the gruesome massacre of 53 Tamil prisoners in the Welikade jail in Colombo on July 25 and 27 last year. Many of them were only detainees on suspicion and not convicted prisoners. After they were brutally murdered, their wives, sisters, children and parents came to know about their death only through the radio. Much more terrible was the fact that the bodies of these detainees were buried or cremated without any member of the families knowing or being present. They were not even given the chance of having a last look at the body. No amount of sanctimonious expressions of sorrow or statements made before the Commission that the Sri Lankan Government was not proud of what happened at the Colombo jail would be acceptable to the civilised world, when up to date, the government has failed or neglected or refused to order an independent judicial inquiry into this unprecedented slaughter of those who were in the custody of the Government.” Statement by All India Womens Conference at UN Sub Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, 24 August 1984.

“Three weeks ago, the people of Sri Lanka passed through experiences which they have rarely had in this country since Independence. Hundreds of people lost their lives, thousands lost their jobs, houses were burned, factories destroyed. These events applied equally to all citizens of Sri Lanka – Sinhalese, Tamils, Muslims…. I had been advised that I should say this or something else, but I thought that I should speak from the depth of my conscience…” President Jayawardene, 22nd of August 1983.

“This was part of an international conspiracy to destabilise us. We know who are behind it at all. I have even told the nation this… These people are jealous of the success of our experiments with a free economy. That is why they are trying their best to set us in flames. Behind all this is the foreign hand: the KGB, to be precise. I am not afraid of saying this openly.” Anandatissa de Alwis, Minister of State, Interview by Pritish Nandy, Illustrated Weekly of India, 18 December 1983.

Interview by Anita Pratap with Velupillai Pirabakaran, leader of the Liberation Tigers for Tamil Eelam, March 1984, Sunday Magazine, India 11-17 March 1984:
Q: “The Liberation Tiger for Tamil Eelam (LTTE) staged the 23 July 1983 ambush in which 13 Sinhalese soldiers were killed. The ambush was allegedly the reason for the Sinhalese retaliation on innocent Tamils. Did you expect such a massive retaliation?”

A:”The July violence should not be assessed simply as a Sinhala retaliation for the guerrilla ambush. This view is a gross oversimplification of the event. The island has been plagued with anti-Tamil racial violence which erupts periodically over the years. There were violent racial holocausts even before the emergence of our movement. Violent riots erupted in Trincomalee a couple of weeks before the ambush. Therefore, the phenomenon of anti-Tamil racial violence cannot be traced to a single event. We are engaged in a protracted guerrilla warfare. There has been several guerrilla raids, several ambushes,, and we have killed several Sinhala soldiers and policemen The July ambush was only a part of the warfare we are engaged in. It is incorrect to assume that one particular military operation has precipitated the entire violence. The July riots, you would have certainly observed, was not aimed at the physical extermination of our people but it was also aimed the destruction of the economic power base of the Tamils in Colombo. Our view is that the July holocaust was a pre-planned, well- orchestrated genocidal pogrom against the Tamils, carried out by the racial elements of the ruling party. Initially, these racist elements did attempt to put the whole blame on the Tiger. Then, suddenly they blamed the left parties for the riots. But in actual fact, it is the racist leaders of the present government who should be the responsibility for this tragic loss of life and property of our people.”

Related events
Tigers kill 13 soldiers in armed ambush
Anti-Tamil violence spreads around the country
Anti-Tamil riots causes civilian deaths and displacement
31 May 1981
Tigers attack international airport

Other features
Feature: Historical roots of conflict in Sri Lanka
Feature: Assassination of an activist
Feature: LTTE expels northern Muslims, 1990