CAT/C/58/D/599/2014 interactions with the Tamil Congress would put him at risk of torture. The State party also submits that the issue of the complainant’s Tamil ethnicity and alleged links with LTTE had been thoroughly assessed and both the protection visa assessment by the Department of immigration and Border Protection and the Refugee Review Tribunal’s assessment found that he did not have any connection with LTTE, nor was he suspected of such links or a criminal suspect. The State party further submits that in its assessment, the Department considered that the complainant’s claims that his activities in Australia placed him at risk of torture if returned to Sri Lanka had not been substantiated. 6.5 With regard to the Edmund Rice Centre report of 12 August 2015,11 the State Party submits that the Department of Immigration and Border Protection used recent and relevant country information to assess the complainant’s claims and that the report does not alter the Department’s conclusion that the complainant would not be at a real and personal risk of torture upon return to Sri Lanka. The State party also submits that any claims made in further submissions with respect to article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are inadmissible, ratione materiae, under rule 113 (c) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. Furthermore, noting that the complainant has exhausted all domestic remedies, the State party requests that the Committee consider the complainant’s communication. 6.6 On 26 February 2016, the State party requested that the Committee fast-track the consideration of the complainant’s communication as all domestic processes had been finalized in that case. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim submitted in a communication, the Committee 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. 7.2 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 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. 7.3 As regards the other arguments by the State party that the communication should be declared inadmissible on the grounds that it is manifestly unfounded, the Committee considers that these arguments are closely related to the merits of the case and therefore declares the communication admissible insofar as it raises issues under article 3 of the Convention. Finding no further obstacles to admissibility, the Committee declares the present communication admissible. 11 12 10 Edmund Rice Centre, “Australian sponsored torture in Sri Lanka? The unforeseen consequences of supporting a brutal regime to stop the boats at any cost”, 12 August 2015. See, for example, communication No. 455/2011, X.Q.L. v. Australia, decision adopted on 2 May 2014, para. 8.2.