CAT/C/61/D/614/2014 2.6 On 20 February 2013, the complainant sought a review of the Independent Protection Assessment Office’s decision before the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia (now known as the Federal Circuit Court of Australia), which dismissed his appeal on 23 April 2014. On 22 May 2014, the complainant lodged an appeal to the Federal Court of Australia, which was anticipated to be heard between 4 and 26 August 2014. 5 However on 9 June 2014, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection informed the complainant, despite the pending appeal, that his forcible removal would take place on 25 June 2014. 2.7 The complainant implies that he has exhausted all available and effective domestic remedies capable of halting his removal, and that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The complaint 3.1 The complainant claims that if he is returned to Sri Lanka, he will be abducted, tortured and probably killed by the Sri Lanka Army or by paramilitary groups, such as the Karuna faction, acting in conjunction with the Sri Lanka Army to persecute suspected LTTE collaborators. He also indicates that four other participants in the school play have also suffered: two of them were kidnapped and killed, one fled to France, and one was kidnapped, tortured and forced to inform on LTTE activities. The complainant submits that about half of the people involved in the theatre performances at the school during the ceasefire fled Sri Lanka, and those who remained were killed. 3.2 The complainant recalls that his appeal to the Federal Court of Australia is still pending and that, should it be unsuccessful, he will still be able to appeal to the High Court of Australia to seek ministerial intervention. He claims that if deported before the conclusion of the legal proceedings and if tortured in Sri Lanka, the State party’s nonrefoulement obligations under article 3 (1) of the Convention would be violated. 6 State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 22 December 2014, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the complaint. It argues that the complainant’s allegations are inadmissible as manifestly unfounded, since the complainant did not establish a prima facie case. If the Committee considers the complainant’s claims to be admissible, the allegations should be dismissed for lack of merit. The complainant has not submitted any new evidence to the Committee that there are substantial grounds for believing that he is in danger of being tortured. All the claims presented by the complainant to the Committee were already assessed in the State party’s refugee status determination and complementary protection processes between March 2012 and April 2014. 4.2 The State party submits that the obligation of non-refoulement is confined to torture7 and does not extend to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 8 It recalls the Committee’s jurisprudence that additional grounds must be adduced by the complainant to show that he would be personally at risk. 9 The onus of proving that there is a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture upon extradition or deportation rests on 5 6 7 8 9 The complainant attached the notice of appeal before the Federal Court of Australia to his initial complaint, and the letter from the Federal Court of Australia dated 10 June 2014 indicating the period during which his appeal would be heard. With regard to exhaustion of domestic remedies, according to the Committee’s case law the principle of exhaustion of domestic remedies requires the complainant to use remedies that are directly related to the risk of torture in the country to which he would be sent. The complainant has therefore exhausted all available and effective domestic remedies necessary to satisfy the admissibility criteria in the present case. See communication No. 83/1997, G.R.B. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 15 May 1998, para. 6.5. See the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention, para. 1. See communication No. 177/2001, H.M.H.I. v. Australia, decision adopted on 1 May 2002, para. 6.5. 3