CAT/C/61/D/690/2015 his sexuality without having to face a well-grounded fear of being arrested, subjected to anal examinations, imprisoned and tortured in prison. 5.2 As for the threat from his relatives, the complainant maintains that the State party has accepted as a fact that they know about his homosexuality. They are conservative people and homosexuality is deeply stigmatized in Lebanon. Many lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons in Lebanon are subjected to physical and mental violence by their families and some become victims of honour crimes and domestic violence. Therefore, there is a strong probability that he will be persecuted by his family. It is impossible to prove more than this. Additional submissions by the parties 6. On 18 November 2016 and 15 May 2017, the State party reiterated its initial position presented in the observations of 14 March 2016 that the general situation in Lebanon does not warrant protection measures towards the complainant and that the complainant has failed to establish a personal risk of treatment in violation of article 3 of the Convention upon his return. 7.1 The complainant submitted his additional comments to the State party’s observations on 15 December 2016 claiming that, in view of the many human rights reports referred to in his previous submissions, there is obvious and general risk for every homosexual person to be persecuted and tortured in Lebanon, and that he, as a homosexual man, therefore faces a well-founded fear of persecution upon return. The information provided earlier about social rejection of homosexuals and the fact that the relatives of the complainant are aware of his sexual orientation is sufficient to conclude that there is a risk that he will be persecuted by his family if returned to Lebanon. 7.2 On 26 January 2017, the complainant submitted a new report dated 29 November 2016 by the Swedish Migration Agency on cases concerning lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons in Lebanon, and claimed that the report proves that article 534 of the Criminal Code had been used to a greater extent in 2016, that people had been kept in detention only because they were suspected of being homosexual, and that anal examinations were still performed. The complainant also produced in support of his claims a statement by the former president of the Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Rights, who represented him in the domestic proceedings, dated 3 January 2017, and a certificate from the Swedish Red Cross psychotherapist, dated 16 January 2017, in which it was stated that the complainant suffered from a complex posttraumatic stress disorder owing to the uncertainty surrounding his situation and the unfair decisions by the authorities in his case. The complainant stated that the domestic authorities had insisted he contact the Lebanese embassy to request a passport for his residence permit proceedings. The embassy had been unable to issue a passport for him, but now he was certainly registered by the Lebanese authorities and, according to him, “the information on his situation is probably reported to the Security Service of Lebanon”. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any complaint 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. 8.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any complaint unless it has ascertained that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted. The Committee notes that, in the present case, the State party has not challenged the admissibility of the complaint on this ground. 8.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the complaint should be declared inadmissible for lack of substantiation. The Committee however considers that the arguments before it raise substantive issues under article 3 of the Convention that should be 4