Search results

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE) was founded in 1976 in response to the growing feeling amongst the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka during the 1960s and 1970s that they were discriminated against by the Singhalese majority. Ultimately, a comflict ensued that developed into a guerilla war opposing the LTTE to the Singhalese with the objective of attaining independence for the Tamil minority.

The present case concerns one of five ethnic Tamils, all naturalised Dutch citizens, charged by the Public Prosecutor of membership in the LTTE and having funded its activities from The Netherlands. In the course of the trial before the District Court of The Hague, the court found that the defendant was a leader of the Tamil Coordinating Committee in The Netherlands, and therefore a member of the LTTE itself. The defendant had undertaken various fundraising activities through the sale of lottery tickets, collecting donations at meetings and extorting money from Tamils living in The Netherlands. Having identified the LTTE as a criminal organisation, in line with US, Indian, EU and Canadian policy, the Court convicted the defendant of membership in and participating in the LTTE and sentenced him to 5 years’ imprisonment. 

Five men, allegedly members of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE, a rebel group in Sri Lanka), were brought before the District Court of the Hague (the Netherlands) on charges of, among others, extortion, money laundering, and raising funds for a terrorist organization. The European Union (EU) placed the LTTE on a list of terrorist organizations in 2006. The present judgment was handed down against one of the suspects, identified only as Selliaha, who acted as the LTTE’s overseas bookkeeper.

The five men, including Selliaha, allegedly extorted millions of Euros through blackmails and threats in order to fund the LTTE in Sri Lanka.

The District Court found Selliaha guilty of invlovement with a criminal organization, but not of supporting terrorism. Furthermore, the District Court considered that the conflict in Sri Lanka amounts to a non-international armed conflict, but dismissed a large number of charges on the basis that the Netherlands was not party to the conflict. Moreover, the District Court ruled that the EU’s classification of the LTTE as a banned organization, made the fundraising operations unlawful in the Netherlands.

The District Court acquitted Selliaha of extortion but convicted him of threatening prospective donators. Selliaha was sentenced to 6 years of imprisonment, the longest sentence of the five accused.

The principle of non-refoulement prohibits deportation of a person if there is a significant risk of that person being subjected to torture in the country of arrival. The principle has been repeatedly in the spotlights since 2001, as states came under increasing obligation to deny safe havens to terrorists. However, as this case proves, the principle was an issue even before September 11, 2001.

Manickavasagam Suresh fled from Sri Lanka to Canada, was granted a refugee status there, but was ultimately denied a permanent status as it was alleged that he supported the Tamil Tigers. Since Canada considered the Tamil Tigers to be a terrorist organisation, it started the procedure to deport Suresh to Sri Lanka. Suresh went to court, stating, among other things, that deportation would violate the principle of non-refoulement. The Court disagreed, stating, most importantly, that the Minister was allowed to enter into a balancing act between national security and Suresh’s individual rights. The Court did not consider the result of this balancing act to be unreasonable, given the evidence of the Tamil Tigers’ activities and Suresh role therein. Also, the Court stated that Suresh had not established ‘substantial grounds’ that he would be subjected to torture. 

The principle of non-refoulement prohibits deportation of a person if there is a significant risk of that person being subjected to torture in the country of arrival. The principle has been repeatedly in the spotlights since 2001, as states came under increasing obligation to deny safe havens to terrorists. However, as this case proves, the principle was an issue even before September 11, 2001.

After the Federal Court rejected Manickavasagam Suresh’s complaint against the decision to deport him, the Court of Appeal reassessed this rejection. It concluded that while torture is prohibited in all cases, there can be circumstances in which a person is removed to a country where he/she is at risk of being subjected to torture. On several places, the Court reiterated that a Minister sometimes has to subordinate the interests of one person to societal interests like national security. In this case, Suresh support of the Tamil Tigers justified the Minister’s appraisal. Such a decision increases public confidence in an adequate application of immigration law, according to the Court. Suresh’s appeal was rejected. 

The principle of non-refoulement prohibits deportation of a person if there is a significant risk of that person being subjected to torture in the country of arrival. The principle has been repeatedly in the spotlights since 2001, as states came under increasing obligation to deny safe havens to terrorists. However, as this case proves, the principle was an issue even before September 11, 2001.

The Federal Court and the Court of Appeal rejected Suresh’s complaint against the decision to deport him. The Supreme Court held that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration should reassess that decision, most importantly because both the Canadian constitution and international law rejects deportation to torture, as there would be a clear connection between the deprivation of someone’s human rights and the Canadian decision to expulse that person. Still, the Court did not exclude the possibility that in some cases, Canada may deport despite risk of torture. Also, the Court held that the Immigration Act had not provided Suresh with sufficient procedural safeguards.