CAT/C/59/D/649/2015 4.17 The State party wishes to provide clarifications concerning the following issues raised in the complainant’s submissions: the new claim regarding prison conditions; the documents relating to the alleged abduction of the complainant’s cousin; the additional information provided in March 2015; the new claim regarding comments reportedly made by the Secretary of Defence of Sri Lanka; and the claims regarding the return to Sri Lanka of persons whose application for asylum is rejected. 4.18 The State party notes that the complainant claimed that, should he be returned to Sri Lanka, he may be charged and face long periods of imprisonment in a facility referred to as Negombo jail or Negombo remand unit for having left Sri Lanka illegally. In his submissions, he claims that the conditions in the Negombo prison facility are poor and refers to the Committee’s concluding observations on the combined third and fourth reports of Sri Lanka as providing evidence of the conditions of detention in Sri Lanka in general. The complainant claims that the conditions of his detention would amount to degrading treatment, regardless of the length of his detention. The State party reiterates that the obligation of non-refoulement under article 3 of the Convention is confined to torture and does not extend to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In any event, on the basis of current country information, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection has determined that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the complainant would suffer such harm on return to Sri Lanka, as he does not have a profile that would attract the adverse attention of the authorities. That finding is consistent with the findings of the Refugee Review Tribunal and the protection visa decision maker that the complainant had been able to freely move through checkpoints within Sri Lanka and depart and return through the airport on a genuine passport without being questioned by the authorities. The Department of Immigration and Border Protection has assessed that the most likely penalty for contravening section 45 (1) (b) of the Immigrants and Emigrants Act is a fine. Regarding the risk of detention in Negombo prison, country information indicates that individuals returned to Sri Lanka have generally been granted bail on personal recognisance immediately by the magistrate, with the requirement that a family member act as guarantor. 4.19 The State party also notes the complainant’s claims that one of his cousins was abducted in 2009. In support of that claim, the complainant attached to his submissions a copy of a complaint about the alleged abduction made to the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, copies of birth certificates of the complainant’s family and other supporting documents. The State party’s decision makers considered the complainant’s claim about the alleged abduction of his cousin but were not provided with the above-mentioned documents. The Department of Immigration and Border Protection has subsequently assessed those documents, which were provided by the complainant as annexes to his submissions linked to the request for ministerial intervention on 30 October 2014. The Department considered that the claims regarding the complainant’s cousin lacked detail and were unsubstantiated. Furthermore, the complainant failed to establish how the circumstances of his cousin’s alleged disappearance were relevant to the way in which the complainant would be treated if returned to Sri Lanka, noting that his cousin was allegedly abducted during a time of generalized violence. The Department therefore concluded that the claims regarding the alleged abduction of the complainant’s cousin should not be given any weight and were insufficient to establish that the complainant was at risk of personal harm if returned to Sri Lanka. 4.20 With regard to the information presented by the complainant on 18 March 2015, the State party notes that it included a number of documents (see para. 2.3). The Department of Immigration and Border Protection considered that additional information and determined that it did not establish that the complainant was owed non-refoulement obligations. The Department rejected the complainant’s claims regarding the alleged harassment of his father by unidentified men in 2014 and 2015. Similar claims about the alleged torture of the 8