CAT/C/58/D/600/2014 to recall the exact address of the crime scene or of his worksite, since he knew how to get there by visual memory as street names and house numbers are not common in rural and remote areas of Sri Lanka; (i) as to the Tribunal’s finding that it was implausible that he had stayed four months before leaving Sri Lanka, he argues that four months is a short period of time to decide to leave one’s home country forever, as he first wanted to see whether the problem would subside on its own and his first attempt to leave Sri Lanka earlier had failed; and (j) contrary to the State party’s claims (see para. 4.8 above), the complainant states that he clearly told the Tribunal that the Sri Lankan authorities visited his house for the third time after he had already left for Australia. In conclusion, the complainant submits that it was unfair of the Refugee Review Tribunal to rely on small and explainable discrepancies to dismiss his general credibility. 5.8 The complainant submits that, according to the State party’s law, the decision of the Tribunal may only be challenged on the grounds of jurisdictional errors. However, the courts’ inability to find a jurisdictional error is unrelated to whether article 3 of the Convention would be violated in case of his return to Sri Lanka. 5.9 Lastly, the complainant argues that the ministerial intervention on humanitarian grounds is highly discretionary and did not adequately consider whether the Tribunal was mistaken in its finding. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 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. 6.2 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 the complainant’s assertion that he has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee therefore finds that it is not precluded from considering the communication under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. 6.3 The Committee notes that the State party has contested the admissibility of the communication on the grounds that the complainant’s claims are manifestly unfounded. The Committee however considers that this ground is closely linked to the merits of the communication and should thus be considered at that stage. 6.4 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 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 7.2 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 9