CAT/C/71/D/754/2016 that his account was not credible, that he did not appear to be of adverse interest to anyone and that he did not engage the State party’s non-refoulement obligations. 8.2 In response to the complainant’s claim of a risk of torture and prolonged detention because of his status as a failed asylum seeker, the State party refers to a country information report dated 23 May 2018. In that report, it is indicated that, even though failed asylum seekers who returned to Sri Lanka could receive a custodial sentence, most cases only resulted in a fine.23 Moreover, even though there have been reprisal attacks against Muslims in Sri Lanka following the Easter bombings, the state of emergency was lifted in August 2019 and all those responsible appear to have been killed during the attacks or arrested. Furthermore, the complainant’s reference to the existence of general violence does not suffice to show that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon return. 24 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 9.1 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. 9.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it 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 challenged the admissibility of the complaint on this ground. Accordingly, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by article 22 (5) (b) from examining the present complaint. 9.3 The State party submits that the complaint is inadmissible ratione materiae insofar as the complainant claims that he would run a risk of being subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment upon return to Sri Lanka. The Committee recalls that article 3 of the Convention extends the principle of non-refoulement to persons at risk of illtreatment commensurate with a risk of torture.25 The Committee notes that the complainant additionally claims a risk of being subjected to torture. The Committee therefore finds that it is not precluded, in this respect, from examining the complaint. 9.4 The State party also submits that the complaint is inadmissible ratione materiae insofar as the death threats that the complainant claims to have received do not amount to torture. The Committee notes that the complaint concerns an alleged violation of article 3 of the Convention and that the complainant has raised the death threats among other elements in support of his claim. The Committee therefore finds that it is not precluded ratione materiae from examining the complaint. 9.5 The State party further submits that the complaint is inadmissible as manifestly unfounded. The Committee considers, however, that the complainant has sufficiently substantiated his claims, for the purposes of admissibility, by sufficiently detailing the facts and the basis of the claim for a decision by the Committee. As the Committee finds no obstacles to admissibility, it declares the complaint admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. 23 24 25 8 Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, “DFAT country information report: Sri Lanka”, 23 May 2018, para. 5.32. V.M. v. Australia, para. 7.2. Committee against Torture, general comment No. 4 (2017), paras. 14–16 and 28; general comment No. 2 (2008), paras. 6, 15 and 25; Flor Agustina Calfunao Paillalef v. Switzerland (CAT/C/68/D/882/2018), paras. 8.1–8.2, 8.5 and 8.8; Harun v. Switzerland (CAT/C/65/D/758/2016), para. 8.6; A.N. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/64/D/742/2016), para. 7.3; and G.R. v. Australia, para. 8.3.