CCPR/C/106/D/1912/2009 4.16 As for the human rights situation in Sri Lanka, the State party refers to the jurisprudence of the United Nations Committee against Torture in V.N.I.M v. Canada 8 in which it found the author’s allegations not to be credible or corroborated by objective evidence. It therefore considered that as such it was not necessary to examine the general human rights situation in the country of return. Even if Tamils are subjected to being stopped and questioned at security checkpoints and human rights abuses against some Tamil men continue to be reported in Sri Lanka, this is not sufficient by itself to be the basis of a violation of the Covenant if the author is returned there. However, should the Committee wish to consider the general situation of human rights in Sri Lanka, the State party contends that the situation has been improving since the Government’s defeat of the LTTE in May 2009. The resettlement of internally displaced persons is proceeding at a rapid pace, and the Government has increased its military and police presence in the north and east of the country to maintain peace 9 . The State party further argues that about 20 per cent of Colombo residents are Tamils and anyone can stay in Colombo without having to give prior notice to the local authorities, although they have to register with the local police. While the number of checkpoints has not been significantly reduced in Colombo, no arrest has been reported at those checkpoints since June 2009. The State party therefore considers that there are viable internal flight alternatives for the author and the latter has not shown that he could not safely live in Colombo should he prefer not to return to his area of origin. The State party concludes that the author has not sufficiently substantiated that he faces a personal risk of a violation of article 6, paragraph 1, or article 7 of the Covenant. His claims in this regard are therefore inadmissible pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 4.17 As for the author’s allegations related to article 9, paragraph 1, the State party reiterates that this part of the communication should be declared incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant. The author has not alleged that the State party has arrested or detained him in violation of article 9, paragraph 1, but that by deporting him to Sri Lanka where he might be arbitrarily detained, the State party would violate this provision. It emphasizes the limited number of rights to which the Committee has given extraterritorial application, article 9, paragraph 1, not being one of those. The State party quotes general comment No. 31 which states that only the most serious breaches of fundamental rights can constitute exceptions to the power of the State to determine the conditions for allowing foreigners to enter and remain on its territory. The State party submits that arbitrary arrest or detention does not rise to the level of grave and irreparable harm contemplated in general comment No. 31 10 . The State party therefore requests that article 9, paragraph 1, be considered inadmissible as incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant. In the alternative, it requests the Committee to find it inadmissible for non-substantiation. 4.18 In the alternative, the State party requests the Committee to reject the author’s claims as being without merits. 4.19 Finally, and in reply to the criticisms made by the author on the refugee determination and asylum procedure, the State party reminds the Committee that it is not 8 9 10 10 The State party refers to CAT communication No. 119/1998, V.N.I.M v. Canada, Views adopted on 12 November 2002, paras. 8.4 and 8.5. The State party refers to the South Asia Intelligence Review, Sri Lanka: Approximating Normalcy, 30 November 20.09; and Progress in Sri Lanka, Robert O. Blake speech of 8 December 2009. The State party refers to General Comment 31 on article 2 of the Covenant regarding the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, 2004.