CAT/C/71/D/789/2016 Additional submissions by the State party 6.1 On 5 December 2019, the State party submitted additional observations. It reiterates its inadmissibility arguments and notes the complainant’s claim that he was not given a fair opportunity to present his evidence concerning his claims of torture. It argues that the assessment of the Refugee Review Tribunal was based on a robust and thorough consideration of the credibility of the complainant’s claims. The Tribunal’s findings regarding the credibility of the claims was based on multiple factors, including the complainant’s lack or explanation or inability to explain claims asserted, a finding that his statutory declaration was misleading, that he had a tendency to exaggerate aspects of his claims, and that a number of the claims made in written submissions were not made before the Tribunal. The complainant was provided ample opportunity to provide evidence during the Tribunal hearing and all the complainant’s claims, including that of having been subjected to sexual assault, were duly considered. It notes that the complainant was represented at the protection visa interview stage and that any concerns regarding his capacity to engage in the process, or any special consideration that ought to have been afforded, could have been raised at that time. 6.2 The State party notes the complainant’s claim that he could be identified through the decision of the Federal Circuit Court. It submits that it is implausible that Sri Lankan authorities would be able to identify the complainant based only on the dates of his departure and detention. It argues that the State party’s authorities have consistently found no evidence to suggest that the complainant would be of ongoing interest to the authorities if returned to Sri Lanka. Additional submissions by the complainant 7. On 1 March 2020, the complainant submitted additional comments on the State party’s observations. He reiterates his claims that he would be at risk of being identified on the basis of the published Federal Circuit Court decision. He reiterates his claims that he was subjected to torture and ill-treatment while detained in 2012 and his claims that the Refugee Review Tribunal failed to properly take those facts into account in its decision. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it 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 In accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, the Committee shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that, in the present case, the State party has not contested that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee therefore finds that it is not precluded from considering the communication under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. 8.3 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the communication is inadmissible ratione materiae and because it is manifestly unfounded, as the complainant has not substantiated the existence of substantial grounds for believing that he would face a foreseeable, present, personal and real risk of 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 ill-treatment if returned to Sri Lanka. 5