CAT/C/58/D/608/2014 was perceived to be opposed to TMVP. In that regard, it pointed out, inter alia, that he had not been subject to extortion or threats by TMVP between his return to Sri Lanka in 2010 and his departure to Australia. 2.12 On 19 August 2013, the complainant submitted an application for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. On 4 February 2014, the Court dismissed his application. On an unspecified date, the complainant requested that the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection exercise his public interest power under section 417 of the Migration Act and grant him permanent residency. In his request, he reiterated his allegations of persecution due to his alleged former connection with LTTE. On 3 April 2014, the Assistant Minister declined to intervene. The complaint 3.1 The complainant submits that his return to Sri Lanka by the State party would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention since there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be at risk of torture by the Sri Lankan authorities due to his alleged work with LTTE between October 2003 and March 2004. Since he left Sri Lanka illegally, he would be arrested and detained upon return and would be suspected of having links with LTTE. He claims that he left his country of origin fearing for his life since he refused to provide his truck to TMVP, which would therefore take revenge. 3.2 The Karuna Group and the Pillayan Group remain active in the eastern and northeastern parts of Sri Lanka. Neither group has been subject to any formal process of disarmament and they operate in coordination with elements of the Sri Lankan security forces. Therefore, the complainant would not receive protection from the authorities. 3.3 The Refugee Review Tribunal made a strict assessment of his credibility. However, the complainant claims that his accounts are consistent with the description of activities carried out by the Karuna Group and TMVP. He submits that he did not mention his connection with LTTE to the authorities at first because he was afraid that it would undermine his chances of being granted a protection visa in Australia, or that it would be shared with the Sri Lankan authorities if he were to be returned. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 23 March 2015, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits of the complaint. It asserts that the complainant’s allegations are manifestly unfounded and therefore inadmissible, as the complainant failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility. Should the Committee find his allegations admissible, the State party submits that they do not disclose a violation of the Convention. The complainant’s allegations are not supported by evidence that there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being tortured if returned to Sri Lanka. In that regard, the State party maintains that the obligation of non-refoulement is confined to torture and does not extend to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 4 4.2 The complainant has not provided any relevant new evidence in his submissions to the Committee that has not already been thoroughly considered by the domestic authorities, including the Refugee Review Tribunal and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. In effective and adequate administrative and judicial proceedings, the authorities determined that his claims were not credible. The State party requests that the Committee give 4 See the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention, para. 3. 5