CAT/C/56/D/591/2014 the police report of 17 September 2010 when he arrived in Australia and, later, when he received it, he did not want to disclose it as proof of his arrest to the State party’s authorities. In that regard, he notes that, at his request, a lawyer in Sri Lanka, a Mr. L.D., went to the police station in Negombo and compared the police records without revealing the complainant’s name. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 9.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 9.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that in the present case, the State party has not contested that the complainant has not exhausted all available domestic remedies.12 The Committee therefore finds that it is not precluded from considering the communication under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. 9.3 The Committee notes that the State party has contested the admissibility of the complaint on the grounds that the complainant’s claims are manifestly unfounded. In the light of the information on file and the arguments presented by the parties, however, the Committee considers that, for purpose of admissibility, the complainant has sufficiently substantiated his claims that there is a foreseeable, real and personal risk he would be subjected to torture if he is deported to Sri Lanka, as his present claims raise serious issues under the Convention which should be considered by the Committee at the merits stage. Accordingly, the Committee finds that the communication is admissible. 9.4 As the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the communication submitted under article 3 of the Convention admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 10.1 In accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, the Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties concerned. 10.2 In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the return of the complainant to Sri Lanka would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return (“refouler”) a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 10.3 The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to Sri Lanka. In assessing that risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant 12 12 See, for example, communication No. 455/2011, X.Q.L. v. Australia, decision adopted on 2 May 2014, para. 8.2.