CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 7 juillet 1989

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF   Application Nos. 13163/87, 13164/87, 13165/87, 13447/87 and 13448/87 by Nadarajah VILVARAJAH, Vaithialingam SKANDARAJAH, Saravamuthu SIVAKUMARAN, Vathanan NAVRATNASINGAM and Vinnasithamby RASALINGAM against the United Kingdom             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 7 July 1989, the following members being present:                   MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                      J.A. FROWEIN                      S. TRECHSEL                      F. ERMACORA                      G. SPERDUTI                      E. BUSUTTIL                      A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                      A. WEITZEL                      J.C. SOYER                      G. BATLINER                      J. CAMPINOS                 Mrs.   G.H. THUNE                 Sir   Basil HALL                 M.    C.L. ROZAKIS                 Mrs.   J. LIDDY                   Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission           Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;           Having regard to the first, second and third applications introduced on 26 August 1987 by Nadarajah VILVARAJAH, Vaithialingam SKANDARAJAH and Saravamuthu SIVAKUMARAN against the United Kingdom and registered on 26 August 1987 under file Nos. 13163/87, 13164/87 and 13165/87;           Having regard to the fourth and fifth applications introduced on 15 December 1987 by Vathanan NAVRATNASINGAM and Vinnasithamby RASALINGAM against the United Kingdom and registered on 16 December 1987 under file Nos. 13447/87 and 13448/87;           Having regard to:        -   reports provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of         the Commission;        -   the Commission's decision of 18 December 1987 refusing         the applicants' requests under Rule 36;        -   the Commission's decision of 13 April 1988 to bring the         applications to the notice of the respondent Government         and invite them to submit written observations on their         admissibility and merits;        -   the observations submitted by the respondent Government         on 31 August 1988 and the observations in reply submitted         by the applicants on 24 November 1988;        -   the Commission's decisions of 11 April 1989 to join the         applications and to invite the parties to a hearing on         admissibility and merits;        -   the hearing of the parties on 7 July 1989;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The applicants are citizens of Sri Lanka, of Tamil ethnic origin.   They are represented before the Commission by Messrs. Winstanley-Burgess, Solicitors, London.           The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows:   A.       The particular facts of the cases           1.   The first applicant           The first applicant was born in 1960.   At the time of lodging his application he was detained at H.M. Detention Centre Latchmere, England, pending his removal to Sri Lanka.           Before going to the United Kingdom the first applicant was an assistant in his father's shop at Paranthon, Kilinochchi District, Northern Province.   Kilinochchi is near Vavuniya, bordering on the Sinhala area.   The first applicant's district was under constant attack by the armed forces, which had established a camp there.   On several occasions the army had attacked, killed and destroyed people and property.   The first applicant's cousin, whilst working in the fields, was killed, together with five other men, by the army in 1986, and the family's shop was raided and damaged on 28 March 1987.           The first applicant states that he was detained twice by naval forces in March and April 1986 and assaulted.   On this first occasion he was driving a mini-bus, which broke down close to a naval base.   A naval patrol detained the first applicant and his passengers for 10 hours.   He claims to have been heavily beaten.   On the second occasion, whilst driving the mini-bus, he was stopped by a naval patrol and detained for 24 hours.   They accompanied the bus back to his home town of Karainagar where they opened fire at random on the people there. Fire was also exchanged between a Tamil separatist group, the LTTE, and the navy personnel, who used the bus passengers as shields.           Young men like the first applicant were arrested by the army and disappeared.   Others were tortured and can no longer lead useful lives.   Many innocent people were killed by the State's armed forces. The State air force indiscriminately bombed the Tamil areas, helicopters shooting at those fleeing the air raids.           During a major Sri Lankan army offensive to retake the Northern Province from the LTTE, the first applicant's family lost their shop and belongings and were at serious risk of losing their lives, particularly the first applicant, a young male Tamil. Accordingly his father sent him to Colombo in May 1987 where he arranged with an agent for the first applicant to be sent to London. The first applicant travelled on his own passport to Madras on 6 June 1987.   On 10 June 1987 he travelled with a Malaysian passport (provided by an agent in Madras) to London via Bombay.   He arrived in London on 11 June 1987 and sought entry to the United Kingdom as a visitor for two days, in transit to Montreal, Canada, where he said he was going for a holiday.   He was detained pending inquiries.   As he later admitted, he was not the rightful holder of the Malaysian passport in which his photograph had been substituted for that of its owner.   The first applicant was, therefore, refused leave to enter under paragraph 3 of the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules which requires that persons seeking admission must produce a valid passport or other identity/nationality document.   On 12 June 1987 the first applicant requested political asylum in the United Kingdom.           On 19 June 1987 the first applicant was interviewed by immigration officers in the Tamil language with the assistance of an interpreter.   He stated that it was unsafe for him to remain in Sri Lanka due to the Government's operations around Jaffna for the reasons outlined above.   The solicitors previously representing the first applicant made no representations to the Home Office on his behalf.           In accordance with paragraph 73 of the Rules, the first applicant's asylum request was referred to the Refugee Section of the Immigration and Nationality Department of the Home Office.   However they concluded that the applicant had not shown that he had a well-founded fear of persecution for the purposes of the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.   This conclusion was endorsed by Home Office Ministers and, on 20 August 1987 (a Thursday), the Secretary of State for the Home Department refused the first applicant's request in the following terms:           "You have applied for asylum in the United Kingdom on the         grounds that you hold a well-founded fear of persecution         in Sri Lanka for reason of race, religion, nationality,         membership of a social group or political opinion.   You         said it was unsafe for you to remain in Sri Lanka due         to Government operations around Jaffna.   You also said         you had been detained on two occasions in March and April         1986 for 10 hours and 24 hours respectively and that on         28 March 1987 the army raided your family business.   But         it is noted that the incidents you have related were         random and part of the army's general activities directed         at discovering and dealing with Tamil extremists and that         they do not constitute evidence of persecution.           You have produced no other evidence in support of your         application for asylum.           The Secretary of State has considered the individual         circumstances of your case and in addition the situation         in Sri Lanka and has concluded that you have not         established a well-founded fear of persecution in Sri Lanka.           Accordingly your application for asylum is refused.   Since         you do not otherwise qualify to enter the United Kingdom,         the Immigration Service has been instructed to arrange for         your removal to Sri Lanka to which country you are         returnable under para. 10 of schedule 2 Immigration Act 1971."           Since the first applicant did not otherwise qualify for leave to enter the United Kingdom under the Immigration Rules, arrangements for his removal to Sri Lanka were made for 22 August 1987 (the Saturday).   He instructed his present representatives, who are experienced in such cases, to apply to the High Court for judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision.   The solicitors had considerable difficulty obtaining instructions, given the delay which occurred in procuring the necessary permission from the Governor of HM Remand Centre, Latchmere, where the first applicant was detained, the latter's ignorance of English and the urgency of his situation.   They worked through Thursday night to prepare the necessary paper work, inevitably sketchy, for the Friday.   The case before the High Court was delayed so that Treasury Counsel could attend.   (Although such cases are usually argued initially by an applicant without the Home Office representative, Treasury Counsel, present, i.e. ex parte, the Home Office nowadays seeks to submit argument from the outset.)   The single judge refused the application.   A similar application to a single judge in the Court of Appeal was also unsuccessful.   By this time it was too late in the afternoon to make up a full Court of Appeal to hear further appeal arguments.   The Home Office refused to defer the first applicant's removal, scheduled the next day, to enable him to go before a full Court of Appeal on the Monday.   The first applicant's solicitors again worked through the night and submitted an application to the Duty Judge on Saturday morning at his home.   They alleged that the Home Office's refusal to delay removal unreasonably denied the first applicant's right to renew his application to the Court of Appeal.   The Judge accepted the argument and issued an injunction which was served by the solicitors at Heathrow Airport in the afternoon, thereby preventing removal.   On 26 August 1987 the Court of Appeal granted the first applicant leave to apply for judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision.           On 24 September 1987 McCowan J. dismissed the application, but on 12 October 1987 the Court of Appeal quashed the refusal decision. The Secretary of State successfully appealed to the House of Lords, which gave judgment on 16 December 1987.   The case before the House of Lords concerned the proper interpretation of Article 1A(2) of the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951 and the definition of a refugee as being a person who has "a well-founded fear of being persecuted" on various grounds.   The House of Lords held that the requirement that an applicant's fear of persecution should be well-founded means that there has to be demonstrated, on the basis of objective fact, a reasonable degree of likelihood, or a real and substantial risk, that he will be persecuted if returned to his own country.           The House of Lords was satisfied that the Secretary of State had acted reasonably and objectively in assessing the Tamil situation in Sri Lanka and in assessing whether there existed for the first applicant any real risk of persecution for a reason specified in the Refugee Convention:           Lord Keith of Kinkel:   "The terms of <the Secretary         of State's> decision letters make it clear that he has         proceeded on the basis of the objective situation in         Sri Lanka as understood by him.   The affidavit of         Mr.   Potts, an official of the Home Office, indicates         that the Secretary of State took into account reports         of the refugee unit of his department compiled from         sources such as press articles, journals and Amnesty         International publications, and also information         supplied to him by the Foreign Office and as a result         of recent visits to Sri Lanka by ministers.   It is         well known that for a considerable time Sri Lanka,         or at least certain parts of that country, have been         in a serious state of civil disorder, amounting at         times to civil war.   The authorities have taken steps         to suppress the disorders and to locate and detain those         responsible for them.   These steps, together with the         activities of the subversives, have naturally resulted         in painful and distressing experiences for many persons         innocently caught up in the troubles.   As the troubles         have occurred principally in areas inhabited by Tamils,         these are the people who have suffered most.   The         Secretary of State has in his decision letters expressed         the view that army activities aimed at discovering and         dealing with Tamil extremists do not constitute evidence         of persecution of Tamils as such.   This was not disputed         by counsel for any of the applicants, nor was it seriously         maintained that any sub-group of Tamils, such as young         males in the north of the country, were being subjected         to persecution for any Convention reason.   It appears         that the Secretary of State, while taking the view that         neither Tamils generally nor any group of Tamils were         being subjected to such persecution, also considered         whether any individual applicant had been so subjected         and decided that none of them had been.   Consideration         of what had happened in the past was material for the         purpose of assessing the prospects for the future.           It was argued that the Secretary of State's decision         letters did not clearly indicate that he had applied         the 'real and substantial risk' test, but left it open         that he might have applied a 'more likely than not'         test.   But there is clearly to be gathered from what         the Secretary of State has said that in his judgment         there existed no real risk of persecution for a         Convention reason."           Lord Templeman:   "In order for a 'fear' of 'persecution'         to be 'well-founded' there must exist a danger that if         the claimant for refugee status is returned to his         country of origin he will meet with persecution.   The         Convention does not enable the claimant to decide         whether the danger of persecution exists.   The         Convention allows that decision to be taken by the         country in which the claimant seeks asylum.   Under         the <Immigration> Act of 1971 applications for leave         to enter the United Kingdom, including applications         based on a claim to refugee status, are determined by the         immigration authorities constituted by the Act.   By the         Rules made under the Act the appropriate authority to         determine whether a claimant is a refugee is the         Secretary of State.   The task of the Secretary of State         in the present proceedings was and is to determine in         the case of each appellant whether the appellant will         be in danger of persecution if he is sent back to Sri         Lanka.   Danger from persecution is obviously a matter         of degree and judgment.   The Secretary of State accepts         that an appellant who fears persecution is entitled to         asylum in this country unless the Secretary of State is         satisfied that there is no real and substantial danger         of persecution.   The Secretary of State has concluded         that there is no real and substantial danger of         persecution."           Lord Goff of Chieveley: "First, I respectfully agree with         my noble and learned friend Lord Keith, for the reasons         given by him, that the requirement that the applicant's         fear must be well founded means no more than that there         has to be demonstrated a reasonable degree of likelihood         of his persecution for a convention reason; indeed, I         understand the submission of counsel   for the Secretary         of State, that there must be a real and substantial risk         of persecution, to be consistent with that interpretation.         Second, it is not to be forgotten that the Secretary of         State has in any event an overriding discretion to depart         from the immigration rules and admit an applicant for         refugee status if he considers it just to do so.   Third,         I am with all respect unable to agree with the view expressed         by Sir John Donaldson MR that different tests are applicable         under Art. 1 and Art. 33 of the Convention (see [1987] WLR         1047 at 1051).   Article 33 (1) provides as follows:              'No Contracting State shall expel or return ("refouler")             a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers             of territories where his life or freedom would             be threatened on account of his race, religion,             nationality, membership of a particular social             group or political opinion.'           Sir John Donaldson MR suggested that, even if the Secretary         of State decides that an applicant is a refugee as defined         in Art. 1, nevertheless he has then to decide whether         Art. 33, which involves an objective test, prohibits         a return of the applicant to the relevant country.   I am         unable to accept this approach.   It is, I consider, plain,         as indeed was reinforced in argument by counsel for the         (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) with         reference to the travaux préparatoires, that the         non-refoulement provision in Art. 33 was intended to apply         to all persons determined to be refugees under Art. 1         of the Convention.   I cannot help feeling, however, that         the consistency between Arts. 1 and 33 can be more         easily accepted if the interpretation of well-founded fear         in Art. 1 (A)(2) espoused by the Secretary of State is         adopted rather than that contended for by the High Commissioner."           After the judgment in the House of Lords had been handed down on 16 December 1987 the first applicant's solicitors wrote to the Home Office later that day indicating that they would be making further representations and that they would be applying to the Commission seeking an indication under Rule 36 of its Rules of Procedure.   They also sought the Home Office's confirmation that no steps would be taken against their client for 7 days, which confirmation was given. Representations were also made by the British Refugee Council and the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service, even though neither body was responsible for the case work concerned.   After considering these representations the Secretary of State concluded that they contained no new information to justify a reversal of the removal decision. Representations by the first applicant's Member of Parliament met with a similar response.           The first applicant was returned to Sri Lanka on 10 February 1988.   He was escorted by police officers, the Sri Lankan authorities having been forewarned.   His name was published in Sri Lankan newspapers.   He was interviewed briefly on arrival by Sri Lankan immigration authorities at the airport.   A member of the British High Commission was also present at the airport on arrival.   The removal expenses were paid by the Home Office and the first applicant had funds in excess of £100.           Since the first applicant's return to Sri Lanka an appeal has been lodged in the United Kingdom by his solicitors on his behalf against the refusal of asylum.   They went to Colombo to interview and take statements from him.   He confirmed that thanks to the publicity surrounding his case and the presence of the member of the British High Commission he was given little trouble at the airport.   He states that he was questioned for about three hours by the Sri Lankan police as to whether he had connections with Tamil separatist groups like the PLOTE and the LTTE, which he denied.   The police noted his address and took his fingerprints.           The first applicant stated that he returned to his native village to avoid the Sri Lankan authorities and denunciation in Colombo by the PLOTE with whom the applicant had been associated, in fact, but who were now cooperating with the Indian Peace Keeping Forces (IPKF) in identifying their former members and alleged Tamil Tigers.           He also said that two weeks after his return he was denounced to the IPKF and summoned to the local Chief Officer's Office.   He was accused of connections with the Tamil Tigers and became frightened. However he was allowed to return home after questioning.   The first applicant found the security situation arbitrary and he was afraid to leave his home.   On a visit to Jaffna in April 1988 he was rounded up with other Tamils and kept 10 hours by the IPKF.   They were paraded in front of masked men who identified certain people.   The first applicant was afraid they would make an error, but he was not detained.   People so detained have been beaten and tortured and on release have "disappeared".   Certain other Tamil groups were cooperating with the IPKF, some for vengeful reasons.   According to the first applicant, the IPKF were unpopular, although many Tamils felt marginally safer with them than with the prospect of the Sri Lankan army returning.           The first applicant recounts other incidents which lead him to fear IPKF ill-treatment because of his earlier involvement with the PLOTE and the IPKF's arbitrary manner of dealing with Tamils.   When he went to Colombo to see his solicitors he had to go through about 13 frightening IPKF checkpoints and three other Sri Lankan checkpoints, doubling the length of the normal 8 hours journey.           He submitted evidence to the Commission from, inter alia, an expert in Sri Lankan affairs, Professor J.G. Manor, who described the situation in Sri Lanka in August 1987 as unstable despite the peace Accord signed between Sri Lanka and India in late July 1987.   In December 1987 a special representative of the World Council of Churches, Mr.   G. Jackson, had found after visiting Sri Lanka for a month that the Tamil areas remained inaccessible, subject to guerilla attack, with a shortage of food, accommodation, transport and medical care.   He had however noticed a slow easing of conditions in the north of the island since the beginning of November 1987.   Amnesty International (17 December 1987) and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (17 December 1987) recommended that Tamil asylum seekers in the United Kingdom should not have been removed back to Sri Lanka because of continued instability and fighting in northern and eastern Sri Lanka between Tamil militants and the IPKF.           2.   The second applicant           The second applicant was born in 1958.   At the time of lodging his application he was detained at H.M. Detention Centre Latchmere, England, pending his removal to Sri Lanka.           The second applicant comes from Jaffna in the north of Sri Lanka, an area which had been controlled by Tamil separatists, the Tamil Tigers, when he was living there.   In 1985 the Sri Lankan army staged a reign of terror.   People could not go out in the street. Young men were arrested without reason; some were tortured or "disappeared" or were shot on sight.   Everyone was suspected of being a Tamil separatist and lived in fear.   When the army conducted searches the second applicant and his family hid in trenches.   His house was searched regularly until 1985.   It was destroyed in 1986. The family had to go for days without food and starved because it was dangerous to go out to fetch it.   The army's daily bombing of the Tamil area was indiscriminate, without concern for human life.   It was the bombing and damage to his home and business on 24 April 1987 which made him decide to leave.   He claims to have been questioned by the police about Tamil Tigers, although he has never belonged to them.           The second applicant left Jaffna having lost all his possessions apart from 150,000 rupees.   He went to Colombo where he was arrested by the police on 2 May 1987 at his uncle's home.   He states that he was held for 20 hours and tortured, resulting in injury and scarring to his right leg.   He claims that he was deliberately injured with barbed wire and that he was released in a dazed and dying state.           An agent, instructed by the second applicant's father, arranged for his flight to an unknown destination.   On 6 June 1987 he travelled by scheduled service Indian Airways from Colombo to Madras on his own Sri Lankan passport issued in Colombo in December 1986.   On 10 June 1987 he then travelled with a Malaysian passport via Bombay to London.   There he sought entry as a visitor for two days in transit for Montreal, Canada.   The second applicant was travelling on a Malaysian passport in the name of Srirengan Rengasamy.   As he later admitted, he was not the rightful holder of the document, his photograph having been substituted for the original.           He stated that his own Sri Lankan passport had been obtained through normal channels, but it had been retained by his travel agent in Madras.   The Malaysian passport had been obtained from the same agent in Madras at a cost of 100,000 rupees (which had been paid for before leaving Colombo) and which included the cost of the airline ticket.           The second applicant was refused leave to enter by the United Kingdom immigration authorities on 12 June 1987 under paragraph 3 of the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules, which requires the production of a valid identity/nationality document.   Arrangements were made for his removal back to Sri Lanka on a 22.00 h flight. However, before the flight he revealed his Sri Lankan nationality and claimed asylum.   His removal was, therefore, postponed.           On 17 June 1987 he was interviewed about his asylum claim in the Tamil language with the assistance of an interpreter.   During the three hour interview, the second applicant explained his fear of persecution if returned to Sri Lanka as outlined above.           In accordance with paragraph 73 of the aforementioned Immigration Rules, the matter was referred to the Refugee Section of the Home Office.   They concluded that the second applicant had not demonstrated that he had a well-founded fear of persecution for the purposes of the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Details of the case were referred to Ministers in the Home Office, who reached a similar conclusion.   Accordingly, on 20 August 1987 a refusal notice was served on the second applicant, who had remained in detention pending consideration of his case.           The Secretary of State's refusal of the second applicant's asylum request was in the following terms:           "You have applied for asylum in the United Kingdom on the         grounds that you hold a well-founded fear of persecution         in Sri Lanka for reason of race, religion, nationality,         membership of a social group or political opinion.   The         Secretary of State has considered your application.   You         said it was unsafe for you to return to Sri Lanka because         of the Government operation around Jaffna.   You stated that         your house and business premises had been destroyed by         Government shelling.   You also said that you had been         detained for 20 hours in May 1987 and had been assaulted.         But it appears that the destruction of your house and         business resulted from a random shelling arising from         civil disorder and it appears that your arrest and brief         detention were part of the army's general activities         directed at discovering and dealing with Tamil extremists.           The Secretary of State has considered the individual         circumstances of your case and in addition the situation         in Sri Lanka and has concluded that you have not         established a well-founded fear of persecution in Sri Lanka.         Accordingly your application for asylum is refused.   Since         you do not otherwise qualify to enter the United Kingdom,         the Immigration Service has been instructed to arrange         for your removal to Sri Lanka to which country you are         returnable under para. 10 of schedule 2 Immigration Act 1971."           Arrangements for his removal to Sri Lanka were made for 22 August 1987.           The subsequent events in this case up to the second applicant's removal to Sri Lanka were identical to those of the first applicant (see pp. 4-6 above).           The second applicant was returned to Sri Lanka on 10 February 1988.   He was escorted by police officers, the Sri Lankan authorities having been forewarned.   His name was published in Sri Lankan newspapers.   He was first interviewed briefly on arrival by Sri Lankan immigration authorities at the airport.   A member of the British High Commission was also present at the airport on arrival.   The removal expenses were paid by the Home Office and the second applicant had funds in excess of £100.   He was then interviewed by the Sri Lankan police for several hours and fingerprinted.   He laid low in Colombo at his uncle's house for about a month until it was safe to travel to Jaffna.           Since the second applicant's return to Sri Lanka an appeal has been lodged in the United Kingdom by his solicitors on his behalf against the refusal of asylum.   They went to Colombo to interview and take statements from him.   He told his solicitors that on 10 March 1988 he was travelling to Jaffna by bicycle from his   home when he was stopped by an IPKF check.   Tamil men and boys were lined up for identification by two masked men, one of whom picked out the applicant.   He was taken with about 10 others to an IPKF camp in a Jaffna house where he was beaten for about three hours.   Part of the time he was clubbed with sand filled PVC pipes.   At the same time questions were shouted at him about a Tamil separatist group, the LTTE, of which group the applicant denied any knowledge.   He was kept in a small room without bedding or sanitary facilities, squashed up with six other detainees who were receiving similar ill-treatment. Some of these people were treated more harshly than the applicant by being beaten hung upside down.   The second applicant was beaten intensely three more times over the next seven days for periods of about half an hour.           He was detained for some two and a half months until 24 May 1988, the same men questioning him.   He lost 20-30 lbs in weight, had bad headaches and was very frightened.   The Indian soldiers constantly told him that if he did not talk they would keep him locked up forever.   The detainees were given rice, dahl and chapatis for food and insufficient water.   They therefore became dehydrated and constipated.   They were filmed and apparently later shown on television as surrendered LTTE men.   The second applicant was rescued by his family by bribing the local IPKF commander with gold, even though his family could not really afford to do so.   He still has nightmares about this period.           On release he was told to report daily.   Given his experience, he fled to Colombo.   On the way there he had to pass 15 IPKF checkpoints and several Sri Lankan army checkpoints.   Everyone was searched at the checkpoints but no one was arrested.           The second applicant states that life in Colombo is very tense for Tamils.   A few weeks ago 25 boys were arrested for not having good reason enough for being in the south.   It is nerve-racking for the second applicant having already been beaten and tortured by the Sri Lankan army in Colombo.   There is a constant danger of arbitrary arrest and detention, particularly with denunciation by informers. However the second applicant feels safer in Colombo than in Jaffna. To justify his stay in Colombo he has registered as a student.           3.   The third applicant           The third applicant was born in 1966.   At the time of lodging his application he was temporarily resident in Morden, Surrey, whilst awaiting his removal to Sri Lanka.           The third applicant comes from Point Pedro, Sri Lanka, where his family are living.   His father is a fisherman.   He is the eldest son.   He was studying for his 'O' level examinations at Khartly College in Point Pedro until the end of 1985 and he then stayed at home.           In April 1984 the third applicant witnessed the killing of his brother by navy personnel.   The brother was a fisherman and was fishing in a boat with a friend within the one mile limit off the coast at Point Pedro.   Navy personnel came by in a boat and shot and killed both of them without warning or reason.           In March 1984 security forces came to the area and rounded up male Tamils, including the third applicant.   They were detained for one day and assaulted with rifle butts and sticks.   Their names and family details were noted.   Some of them were taken away by the army.           In June 1984 the security forces came to Point Pedro and again rounded up the male Tamils, including the third applicant.   About 300 people were rounded up.   Part of the time they were detained outside, part of the time in a building.   They were assaulted.   The security forces took away 15 people and shot and killed them the same day.   The bodies were burned.   Others were sent to an army camp.           In September 1984 the situation repeated itself with male Tamils being rounded up and detained for one day.   The third applicant was again detained.   About 20 people were taken away, shot and killed. The bodies were burned on the spot.           After these incidents, whenever they saw the security forces approaching, the men would run away and go into hiding.           Point Pedro has been subject regularly to air bombardment and shelling from the army camp.   The third applicant's family house was damaged during air bombardment in October 1985 and the family had to move to another house in the area.           The third applicant states that he was in the Tiger Movement (the LTTE) from late 1984 until he left Sri Lanka.   He did some military training and was a sentry for the camp.   He also carried communications for them.   He claims, however, never to have been involved in any violence or terrorist activities.           His father decided that the third applicant should leave Sri Lanka as he feared for his son's safety as a young, male Tamil.   His father made arrangements through a Tamil agent in Point Pedro for his son to leave the country.   The third applicant travelled to Colombo on 28 November 1986 and stayed with the agent until 11 December 1986. The agent obtained a passport for him.   The third applicant travelled to the United Kingdom via India, Nepal and Dhaka.           On the way to Colombo airport, the minibus in which he was travelling was stopped at an army checkpoint just before the airport. The third applicant and the other passengers were accused of going for training with militants in India - they were in possession of tickets for India.   They were taken to an office and held for 3 hours and questioned.   They were also fingerprinted.           The third applicant was one of a group of some 64 Tamils who arrived at Heathrow Airport, London, on 13 February 1987 and claimed asylum.   He originally stated that he was in transit to Norway.   The 64 Tamils were all detained pending the proceedings.           The third applicant was interviewed in the Tamil language with the aid of an interpreter.   As to conditions in Sri Lanka he described the events outlined above.   At that stage he averred that he was not involved in the Tamil Tiger movement.   (He did not make this claim to the British authorities until September 1987.)           Pursuant to paragraph 73 of the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules, the matter was referred to the Refugee Section of the Home Office.   They concluded that the third applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution for the purposes of the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and his application was refused on 16 February 1987.   However, an application for leave to apply for judicial review was made to the Divisional Court and granted on 24 February.   On 2 March the Home Office informed the third applicant's solicitors that a fresh decision would be taken on the asylum claim.           Representations from the United Kingdom Immigrants' Advisory Service were received and the third applicant was re-interviewed about his asylum claim on 14 April 1987.           The application for asylum was reconsidered in the Refugee Section but they again concluded that the third applicant had not demonstrated that he had a well-founded fear of persecution for the purposes of the 1951 Convention.   Details of the case were referred to Ministers, who reached a similar conclusion.   Accordingly, on 20 August 1987 a refusal letter was served on the third applicant, which read as follows:           "You have applied for asylum in the United Kingdom on the         grounds that you hold a well-founded fear of persecution         in Sri Lanka for reason of race, religion, nationality,         membership of a social group or political opinion.   The         Secretary of State has further considered your application.         You said it was too dangerous to stay in Sri Lanka.   People         were being arrested indiscriminately and killed by the         security forces.   You also said that you had been detained         on three occas