CAT/C/59/D/666/2015 Moreover, he became easily identifiable as an ongoing sympathizer of the Alliance because of his continuing support for S.Y. in Australia. 3.2 The complainant claims in particular that should he be returned to Sri Lanka, he will be arbitrarily detained, interrogated and charged, as he left the country illegally. He adds that if returned to the Eastern District of Sri Lanka, he will be imprisoned without bail in Negombo jail or be harassed or abducted. He claims that the conditions of detention in the Negombo remand unit constitute degrading treatment, regardless of the length of time spent there on remand. 3.3 The complainant therefore maintains that his return to Sri Lanka, if implemented, would constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 10 December 2015, the State party submitted that the complainant’s allegations are inadmissible as they are manifestly unfounded pursuant to rule 113 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. Should the Committee find the allegations admissible, the State party maintains that they are without merit as they are not supported by sufficient evidence that there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant is in danger of being tortured as defined by article 1 of the Convention. 4.2 The State party makes reference to the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 outlining the standards for non-refoulement and to its decision in G.R.B. v. Sweden.6 The State party maintains that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case that there is a foreseeable, real and personal risk that he would be subjected to torture if returned to Sri Lanka. The complainant’s claims were thoroughly considered by the State party’s “robust and comprehensive domestic administrative and judicial process”, including by the Federal Circuit Court. The State party asserts that it takes its obligations under the Convention seriously and implements its obligations in good faith through its domestic migration processes. It requests the Committee to accept that it has thoroughly assessed the complainant’s claims through its domestic processes and found that it does not owe the author protection obligations under the Convention. 4.3 The complainant initially lodged an application for a protection visa on 25 August 2012. The decision maker conducted an interview with him with the assistance of an interpreter and considered relevant material such as the Department of Immigration and Border Protection guidelines on assessments; the Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status issued by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR); and country information, including reports of the Home Office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United States of America Department of State and the Danish Immigration Service. The complainant claimed that his brother had been shot in 2005. The decision maker took into consideration that his brother had been questioned on only one occasion, in 2009, in relation to the incident, and had not had any further problems. It was therefore determined that there was no subjective reason why the complainant would be harmed in connection with that incident. In relation to the complainant’s previous work for the Tamil National Alliance and relationship with an Alliance politician, the decision maker took into account country information that reported incidents of harm committed against Alliance members and supporters in the Northern Province of Sri Lanka, but not in the Eastern Province, where the complainant lived. The decision maker noted that the complainant was not a civil society activist, nor does he have the profile of a sympathizer of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). It further noted that UNHCR had advised that given recent improvements, there “is no longer a need 6 Communication No. 83/1997, Views adopted on 15 May 1998, para. 6.3. 3