CAT/C/68/D/855/2017 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether the communication 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. Therefore, the Committee concludes that it is not precluded by article 22 (5) (b) from examining the present communication. 8.3 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the communication is inadmissible ratione materiae and manifestly unfounded since the complainant has not substantiated the existence of substantial grounds for believing that he would face a foreseeable, present, personal and real risk of harm, including torture, if he were returned to Sri Lanka. With regard to competence ratione materiae, the Committee notes the complainant’s argument that, if returned to Sri Lanka, he would risk being detained and subjected to torture. The Committee considers that these claims may raise issues under article 3 of the Convention. Accordingly, the Committee finds the complainant’s allegations under article 3 admissible ratione materiae. The Committee also considers that the complainant has sufficiently substantiated, for the purposes of admissibility, his claims based on article 3 of the Convention, regarding his risk of being subjected to torture and illtreatment if returned to Sri Lanka, because of his past political activities and his relationship and collaboration with his uncle, who is a target of a hostile political campaign. 8.4 As the Committee finds no obstacles to admissibility, it declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 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. 9.2 In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the forced removal 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. 9.3 The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant was 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 considerations, pursuant to article 3 (2) of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. In this context, the Committee refers to its consideration of the fifth periodic report of Sri Lanka, 4 during which it had voiced serious concerns about reports suggesting that abductions, torture and ill-treatment perpetrated by State security forces in Sri Lanka, including by the police, had continued in many parts of the country after the conflict with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam had ended in May 2009. 5 However, the Committee recalls that the aim of the evaluation undertaken in the context of individual complaints is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would be returned. It follows that the existence of a pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute sufficient reason for determining that a particular person would be in danger 4 5 CAT/C/LKA/CO/5, paras. 9–12. CAT/C/LKA/CO/3-4, para. 6. 7