CAT/C/58/D/600/2014 intervene. The complainant therefore submits that he has exhausted all available and effective domestic remedies. The complaint 3. The complainant claims that there are substantial grounds for believing that he will suffer irreparable harm if deported to Sri Lanka. He states that, as a consequence of his complaining to the Sri Lankan police about the woman being strangled by soldiers, the military intelligence of Sri Lanka is demanding his return. He also states that he has “no hope of survival in Sri Lanka” if returned. The complainant argues that, since he left Sri Lanka illegally by boat, if he is returned, he will be taken to Negombo prison for interrogation and subjected to torture. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 7 November 2014, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the complaint. It asserts that the complainant’s claims are manifestly unfounded and therefore inadmissible under rule 113 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure, as he failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of his complaint under article 22 of the Convention. However, should the Committee consider the communication admissible, the State party submits that the complainant’s claims are without merit. The State party assumes that the claims are in relation to article 3 of the Convention, although the complainant does not specifically invoke this in his submissions. Regarding the facts, the State party submits that, on 9 October 2014, the complainant was granted a bridging visa by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection that allowed him to live in the community. 2 4.2 The State party recalls, based on the Committee’s jurisprudence, that, in order to show that a State party would be in breach of its non-refoulement obligations under article 3 of the Convention, an individual must be found to be personally at risk of being subjected to torture should he or she be returned to a country. In addition, the onus of proving that there is a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture upon extradition or deportation rests on the complainant and the risk must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory and suspicion. 3 4.3 The State party argues that the complainant’s claims were thoroughly considered by a number of domestic decision makers, including the Refugee Review Tribunal, and subjected to judicial review by the Federal Circuit Court and the Federal Court of Australia. Each body specifically considered the claims and determined that they were not credible and that they did not engage the State party’s non-refoulement obligations. In particular, the complainant’s claims were assessed under the complementary protection provisions of section 36 (2) (aa) of the Migration Act, which contains the State party’s non-refoulement obligations under, inter alia, the Convention. 4.4 When assessing the complainant’s claims, the Tribunal took into account the difficulties faced by asylum seekers in providing supporting evidence. It considered, however, that it was reasonable to expect that an individual would be able to provide evidence at a basic level regarding personal experiences. The complainant has not provided any credible new evidence in his submissions to the Committee that had not already been considered in the domestic administrative and judicial proceedings. In this 2 3 4 In its additional observations of 31 March 2016, the State party stated that the complainant had been in Australia since 17 February 2012 and was currently residing unlawfully in the community. See, for example, communication No. 203/2002, A.R. v. Netherlands, decision adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 7.3.