CAT/C/62/D/696/2015 Act, under which former LTTE members were often detained, and replace it with legislation that complies with international standards. Although the human rights situation in Sri Lanka still gives cause for concern, in view of information from public sources, there is no reason to assume that every Tamil, whether or not they had links to LTTE in the past, will be subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention upon returning to Sri Lanka. The State party is therefore of the view that the information in recent reports and that contained in reports cited by the complainant do not provide any reason to assess asylum applications by Tamils differently from what is set out in its observations of 28 October 2016. 9.2 The State party notes the complainant’s explanation as to why he did not provide information about the weapons that his friend had allegedly hidden. It also notes that the complainant again changed his statement in that regard and it considers that, if anything, its credibility of that part of the complainant’s account has been further reduced. 9.3 The State party remains unconvinced by the complainant’s statement that his situation was different from that of his family members due to his earlier arrest and the fact that he had hung decorations associated with LTTE activities in his shop. The State party considers it unlikely that the Sri Lankan authorities would not have checked about involvement by all the complainant’s family members in the investigation they carried out following the discovery of hidden weapons. 9.4 As to the complainant’s claim that it did not say anything about Amnesty International’s medical findings concerning his psychological problems, the State party reiterates that the complainant’s inability to give a complete and consistent account of less important matters and certain details was not held against him. However, it held the fact that he failed to immediately report essential parts of his account against him and that he subsequently made contradictory, vague and implausible statements regarding those matters, even though they had had a major impact on him and were his main reason for leaving Sri Lanka. 9.5 Finally, the State party notes that, even if it were to accept the complainant’s claim that he was subjected to ill-treatment during his third and fourth alleged arrests, it does not necessarily mean that, more than seven years later, there is a real risk that he will be subjected to such treatment upon returning to Sri Lanka. In view of the significant amount of time that has elapsed, the fact that the complainant was not involved in hiding the weapons and that no evidence has come to light that he actively supported LTTE in Sri Lanka or in the diaspora or that he is otherwise considered as a dangerous individual who could reignite the conflict in Sri Lanka, the State party does not consider it likely that the complainant will encounter problems like that with the Sri Lankan authorities if he returns to his country of origin. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 10.1 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. 10.2 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 the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that, in the present case, the State party argues that the complainant has not exhausted all available domestic remedies because he failed to appeal the denial of his asylum application before the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State. The Committee also notes the complainant’s arguments that he mailed his appeal on the last day of the deadline and that the Council of State received it the next day. The Committee further notes that the Council of State gave the complainant the opportunity to substantiate the late submission of the 10