CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 juin 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s750DB8D0 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } SECOND SECTION Application no. 36801/13 T.E. against Switzerland lodged on 6 June 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant is a Sri Lankan national of Tamil origin from the Vanni region who entered Switzerland in September 2011 where he applied for asylum. He claimed that between 1994 and 2009 he had been member of the LTTE and worked as bodyguard and later as chauffeur of a prominent leader of the LTTE. He alleged that in May 2009 he had been detained by the Sri Lankan army and put in various detention camps where he had been tortured. In February 2011 he had been released and had returned to his parents’ home. Shortly after his release, officers from the Criminal Investigation Department had come to his parents’ house and had asked for him. He had been informed that also people from the Eelan People’s Democratic Party had been looking for him. Fearing that the Criminal Investigation Department wanted to detain him again, he had gone into hiding and had finally left Sri Lanka. The applicant’s asylum request had been dismissed, in last instance, by the Federal Administrative Court on 7   May 2013. Ruling that the Vanni region was not safe enough to return, they established that the applicant had a relocation alternative at his parents’ home. COMPLAINTS The applicant claims to be at risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention if expelled to Sri Lanka for the following reasons: he had been a member of the LTTE and had received military training by the LTTE, he had worked all those years for a prominent leader of the LTTE, he had allegedly witnessed the killing of this leader when the latter wanted to surrender, he had been tortured and scarred in the detention camp and only released on bribe and he had further been obliged to report regularly to the Sri Lankan authorities after his release and not to leave the country; obligations he did not comply with. He further alleges that shortly after his release from the detention camp, officers of the Criminal Investigation Department and the Eelan People’s Democratic Party were looking for him and he feared that he would newly be detained or even disappeared. Also his parents had been repeatedly interrogated by the Sri Lankan authorities about his whereabouts. Lately, the applicant alleges that as a refused asylum seeker from Switzerland the Sri Lankan authorities would generally suspect him of supporting the LTTE. He claims that in the eyes of the Sri Lankan authorities, Switzerland is a fundraising centre for the LTTE. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES     In the light of the applicant’s claim and the documents which have been submitted, would he face a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention if the expulsion order was enforced?