CCPR/C/106/D/1912/2009 7.6 Indeed, it was for the IRB and PPRA officers to dispel any doubts that might have persisted as to the cause of such scarring. 16 The State party failed to direct an expert opinion as to the causes and age of the scars observed on the author’s chest and based its decision to reject the author’s asylum claim merely on inconsistencies that are not central to the general allegation faced by the author as an ethnic Tamil from the North of Sri Lanka. 7.7 The Committee is accordingly of the view that the material before it suggests that insufficient weight was given to the author’s allegations of torture and the real risk he might face if deported to his country of origin, in the light of the documented prevalence of torture in Sri Lanka. Notwithstanding the deference given to the immigration authorities to appreciate the evidence before them, the Committee considers that further analysis should have been carried out in this case. 17 The Committee therefore considers that the removal order issued against the author would constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant if it were enforced. 7.8 In the light of its findings on article 7, the Committee does not deem it necessary to further examine the author’s claims under article 9 of the Covenant. 8. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the author’s removal to Sri Lanka would violate his rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 9. In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy, including a full reconsideration of the author’s claim regarding the risk of treatment contrary to article 7, should he be returned to Sri Lanka, taking into account the State party’s obligations under the Covenant. The State party is also under an obligation to take steps to prevent similar violations in the future. 10. Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant or not and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory or subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy in case a violation has been established, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the Committee’s Views. The State party is also requested to publish the present Views and disseminate them broadly in the official languages of the State party. [Adopted in English, French and Spanish, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic, Chinese and Russian as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.] 16 17 See ECHR, R.C. v. Sweden, Appl. No. 41827/07, Judgment of 9 June 2010, para. 53. See communication No. 1763/2008 (footnote 14 above). 15