CAT/C/63/D/618/2014 8.5 The Committee observes that the complainant presented new claims as part of his requests for ministerial intervention, which were refuted by the State party, since the complainant’s alleged involvement in people smuggling and alleged family links to people smugglers were not supported by any credible information that would make his protection visa application successful. The Committee also observes that the State party found no evidence that the complainant is related in any way to Nihal Pieris or his sons Amith and Asith, or that the details of their cases have any significant bearing on his own. Consequently, the State party found that there was no evidence to suggest that the author had ever been involved in people smuggling, nor was there any reason to believe that the Sri Lankan authorities would suspect him of being involved in such activities. 8.6 The Committee notes the complainant’s further information submitted on 14 October 2014 regarding his contact with the uncle and his sons, and another person named Rokshan in Sri Lanka in February and March 2012, concerning the organization of the boat journey to Australia. In this context, the Committee also notes the State party’s observations that the relevant decision makers have consistently concluded that there are no substantial grounds for believing that the author is at foreseeable, personal and real risk of torture if returned to Sri Lanka, and that even if the author was, upon his return to Sri Lanka, to be charged with leaving the country illegally under section 45 B of the Immigrants and Emigrants Act, this would not result in the complainant facing a real risk of torture. Lastly, the Committee observes that the complainant was removed to Sri Lanka in January 2015, that he was subsequently reportedly subjected to questioning by the Criminal Investigation Department officers and beaten in June 2016, and that no further comments have been received from the complainant since December 2016. In this regard, the Committee observes that the complainant submitted the information on his alleged beating, which occurred more than a year after his removal to Sri Lanka, only five months later, without any accompanying medical evidence or evidence that he had complained about the incident to the official authorities. 8.7 In the light of the above, and in the circumstances of the present case, the Committee considers that the complainant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate his allegations of a risk of torture or other ill-treatment on account of being a failed asylum seeker; for having left Sri Lanka illegally; due to his political affiliation to the United National Party or his religion; or his perceived involvement in people smuggling activities. As regards the alleged beating of the complainant by the Criminal Investigation Department officers following his removal to Sri Lanka, the Committee considers that those claims have not been adequately corroborated. The Committee therefore concludes that the complainant’s communication is inadmissible for lack of substantiation, in accordance with article 22 of the Convention and rule 113 (b) of its rules of procedure. 14 9. The Committee therefore decides: (a) (b) State party. 14 10 That the communication is inadmissible under article 22 of the Convention; That the present decision shall be transmitted to the complainant and to the See, e.g., communications No. 308/2006, K.A. v. Sweden (CAT/C/39/D/308/2006), paras. 7.2 and 8, and No. 687/2015, Z.A.H. v. Canada (CAT/C/61/D/687/2015), para. 7.7.