CCPR/C/106/D/1912/2009 Tamils living in Sri Lanka and that he would not face more than a mere possibility of persecution. The Federal Court denied the author’s application for judicial review on 4 September 2009. As for the author’s second application for a residence permit based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds that he submitted on 29 October 2007, it was rejected on 21 April 2009. His application for leave for judicial review was denied on 4 September 2009. 4.13 The State party contends that the author has not exhausted domestic remedies in relation to his claims under articles 6, paragraph 1, and 7 as he has submitted two pieces of evidence to the Committee that post-date the decisions made in the author’s latest PRRA and H&C applications and as such, have not been considered by the domestic authorities. These documents are a medical report dated 26 June 2009 and a letter from Amnesty International dated 1 June 2009. The State party relies on the Committee’s jurisprudence in Dawood Khan v. Canada, where it has considered that the author should have submitted the said medical report to the domestic remedies before submitting his communication to the Committee. The Committee considered that it was not too late to request a new PRRA or application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds based on the new reports 7 . The State party also contends that the author has failed to exhaust domestic remedies as he did not apply for judicial review against the first decision on the H&C application dated 14 September 2007 (see paragraph 4.10 above). 4.14 The State party further contends that the author has not sufficiently substantiated his claims under articles 6, paragraph 1, and 7 of the Covenant. Despite the defeat of the LTTE in May 2009, the author alleges that he remains at risk from Sri Lankan authorities because he is an ethnic Tamil from the North of Sri Lanka, he has been previously detained by the army and his body bears the scars of past torture. The communication is based on the same facts and largely the same evidence as were presented to the Canadian tribunals and risk assessment officer, whose decisions were reviewed and upheld by the Federal Court. There is no explanation provided as to why either of the documents now available to the Committee could not have been obtained during the course of the author’s more than five years of domestic proceedings. Without wishing to appear to prejudge the probative value of those documents, which is a role properly attributed to the independent PRRA officer on any future application for protection, the State party notes that the two documents are not based on independent knowledge of his personal situation. The medical report merely confirms that he has scars on his chest that are compatible with his story of past torture. With respect to the letter from Amnesty International, it speaks generally of the risks that the author faces because of his profile as an ethnic Tamil male from northern Sri Lanka who is a failed asylum seeker and has claimed to have suffered past abuse. 4.15 As such, there is nothing to suggest that the author is at personal risk of torture or illtreatment in Sri Lanka. The State party recalls that it is not the role of the Committee to reevaluate facts and evidence unless it is manifest that the domestic tribunal’s evaluation was arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. The material submitted by the author cannot lead to such a conclusion. However, should the Committee decide to re-evaluate findings with respect to the author’s credibility, a consideration of the totality of the evidence permits only one conclusion, which is that the author’s allegations are not credible. In this regard, the State party refers to the inconsistencies pointed out by the IRB as referred to above (see paragraphs 4.6-4.7). 7 The State party refers to communication No. 1302/2004, Dawood Khan v. Canada, Inadmissibility Decision adopted on 25 July 2006, para. 5.5 9