CAT/C/61/D/614/2014 requested by the Committee, in particular by forcibly removing an alleged victim, undermines the protection of the rights enshrined in the Convention. 17 6.2 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the Committee’s request for interim measures could not be brought to the attention of the relevant authorities in sufficient time to prevent the complainant’s scheduled departure on 25 June 2014. In that regard, the State party argued that while the complainant was in transit, his submission to the Committee was assessed and it was concluded that there was no new information in the communication that had not already been thoroughly considered through domestic processes. The Committee notes the absence of information as to which authorities of the State party carried out such an expeditious assessment, and notes that following his removal to Sri Lanka, the Committee lost contact with the complainant, who did not submit any further information to the Committee. The Committee recalls that the principle of nonrefoulement as contained in article 3 of the Convention is absolute.18 6.3 The Committee observes that any State party that has made a declaration under article 22 (1) of the Convention recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider complaints from individuals who claim to be victims of violations of the provisions of the Convention. By making such a declaration, States parties implicitly undertake to cooperate with the Committee in good faith by providing it with the means to examine the complaints submitted to it and, after such examination, to communicate its comments to the State party and the complainant. By failing to respect the request for interim measures transmitted to the State party on 24 June 2015, the State party seriously failed in its obligations under article 22 of the Convention, in particular as the removal of the complainant to Sri Lanka hindered an effective examination of his complaint by the Committee. Consideration of admissibility 7.1 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. 7.2 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. 7.3 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the communication is manifestly ill-founded, as the complainant has not substantiated the existence of a personal risk of torture if returned to Sri Lanka, and should therefore be held inadmissible pursuant to rule 113 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. The Committee recalls that for a claim to be admissible under article 22 of the Convention and rule 113 (b) of its rules of procedure, it must rise to the basic level of substantiation required for purposes of admissibility.19 The Committee considers that the complainant has sufficiently detailed the facts and the basis of his claims under article 3 of the Convention to enable the Committee to make a decision, and therefore considers that his claims are sufficiently substantiated for the purpose of admissibility. 17 18 19 See communications No. 444/2010, Abdussamatov and others v. Kazakhstan, decision adopted on 1 June 2012, paras. 10.1 and 10.2; No. 538/2013, Tursunov v. Kazakhstan, decision adopted on 8 May 2015, paras. 7.1 and 7.2; No. 542/2013, X v. Russian Federation, decision adopted on 8 May 2015, paras. 9.1 and 9.2; No. 554/2013, X v. Kazakhstan, decision adopted on 3 August 2015, para. 10.1, and No. 671/2015, D.I.S. v. Hungary, decision adopted on 8 December 2015, paras. 9.1-9.3. See Abdussamatov and others v. Kazakhstan, para. 13.7; X v. Kazakhstan, para. 10.3; and communication No. 39/1996, Tapia Paez v. Sweden, Views adopted on 28 April 1997, para. 14.5. See, inter alia, communication No. 308/2006, K.A. v. Sweden, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 16 November 2007, para. 7.2. 7