“We accept that it is likely that the Appellant was detained and ill-treated as described in January 2006 in consequence of her involvement in local demonstrations: she has been consistent in this aspect of her evidence, has provided some corroborative evidence in the form of a medical report relating to her scars, and such an event is plausible when measured against the country information. However, we are doubtful as to the circumstances of her release, and in particular we reject her claim as to the imposition of a reporting restriction. We do not consider that there is any continuing risk by reason of her involvement in the Poongu Tamil Neera: she was, on her own evidence, held for a lengthy period during which she provided what little information she could about such an event. We do not consider that thereafter her involvement in that event would mark her out, in the opinion of the authorities, as somebody with involvement in, or support for, the LTTE significant enough to warrant further enquiry or investigation.”
“The Appellant’s facial scars, whilst providing some corroborative evidence of her ill-treatment, are not obvious in size or appearance. The scar on her abdomen is not visible when clothed. We note the observations at paragraph 217 of LP and similarly conclude that the Appellant’s scars will not put her at risk in themselves, and, in circumstances where we do not consider that she is at risk of investigation for any other reason, we do not consider it sufficiently likely that her scars will come to light or be perceived as indicative of involvement with the LTTE.”