CAT/C/65/D/761/2016 necessary for the Committee to consider and determine the State party’s submission, as required under the rules of procedure, that complaints raising allegations that clearly do not fall within the definition of torture in article 1 of the Convention, or that are manifestly unfounded, are inadmissible. On this basis, the State party requests that the Committee specifically consider and respond in its views to the arguments made by the State party with regard to the admissibility of the complaint. 6.2 The State party refers to the complainant’s submission, in which he states that he is not required to show that he will be tortured if he is returned, but only that the danger exists. The State party submits that this is not an accurate characterization of the threshold set in the Convention, which is that there must be substantial grounds for believing that the danger of torture exists5 and the danger must be personal and faced by the complainant. 6 The State party notes that the complainant’s comments do not provide any relevant new evidence or information that has not already been considered through comprehensive domestic processes. The State party acknowledges that article 3 (2) of the Convention requires all relevant considerations to be taken into account when determining whether article 3 (1) is engaged, including the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, additional grounds must exist to show the individual concerned would be personally at risk.7 6.3 With regard to the merits of the complaint, the State party notes that the complainant has submitted only a poor-quality photograph and an argument unsupported by medical opinion that his father-in-law’s death was not the result of suicide. It observes that the quality of the photograph is such that no conclusions can be drawn from it, and it does not prove the complainant’s claims. The State party also notes that the complainant’s father-inlaw died four months after the complainant’s departure from Sri Lanka, so he could not have been a witness to a possible crime as he claims. 6.4 The State party rejects the complainant’s claim that there have been no findings made against his credibility. It notes that the domestic decision makers found a number of the complainant’s assertions to be not entirely truthful, namely his claims related to the death of his father-in-law and his method of departure from Sri Lanka. 6.5 The State party further rejects the complainant’s allegations that the domestic procedures were not robust and submits that the claims made by the complainant in his communication have been thoroughly considered by a number of domestic decision makers and they have been found not to engage the State party’s non-refoulement obligations. It provides a brief description of each stage of the process. 6.6 The State party notes that at the initial stage, a refugee status assessment, an interview was conducted with the complainant. Based on the information provided and other relevant considerations, including various pieces of country information and the UNHCR eligibility guidelines for assessing the international protection needs of asylum seekers from Sri Lanka, the decision maker found there to be no evidence that the complainant would be at risk of serious harm if he were returned to Sri Lanka, nor that he had a well-founded fear of persecution. 6.7 Then, during the independent merits review, the reviewer considered the complainant’s claims afresh and again found that they did not engage the State party’s protection obligations. After reviewing several pieces of country information, including information from Amnesty International, International Crisis Group and Human Rights Watch, the reviewer found that the complainant would not be accused of supporting the Tamil Tigers, nor harmed on account of his Tamil ethnicity. 6.8 Later, a judicial review of the recommendations from the independent merits review was conducted on appeal to the Federal Magistrates Court. It was argued by the complainant that jurisdictional error had been committed in failing to consider all claims and relevant material, that the reviewer had failed to ask the correct questions, and that the 5 6 7 Paez v. Sweden (CAT/C/18/D/39/1996), para. 14.5. G.R. v. Australia (CAT/C/57/D/605/2014), para. 9.4. G.R.B. v. Sweden (CAT/C/20/D/83/1997), para. 6.3. 5