CAT/C/63/D/618/2014 7.3 On 22 June 2016, the complainant was requested to appear in the Criminal Investigation Department head office in Colombo on 23 June 2016. He presented himself accordingly. He was reportedly taken to the fourth floor by two Criminal Investigation Department officers, where various types of arms were on display. He was threatened and asked about the owner of the vessel, the name of its skipper and the other persons involved in the trip. He claims to have been tortured and questioned in filthy language that day. Although he denied involvement as a crew member, asserting that he had to pay for the trip and had known nothing beyond that, he was beaten, started bleeding and consequently lost consciousness. When he regained consciousness, he was lying in hospital. 11 Again, he was called to appear at the head office of the Criminal Investigation Department. Since then, he has been living in fear as he has absconded and has not appeared at the courts or the Criminal Investigation Department headquarters. He therefore hoped that Australia would issue him with a security visa. 7.4 The complainant was allegedly asked to reveal all the details about the trip to Australia to the Criminal Investigation Department once again on 24 November 2016. 12 He claims that his wife has filed for divorce, as she fears living with him. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether the communication 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 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. 8.3 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the communication is manifestly ill-founded, since the complainant has not substantiated the existence of substantial grounds for believing that he would face a foreseeable, present, personal and real risk of harm, including torture, if returned to Sri Lanka, 13 and should therefore be held inadmissible. 8.4 The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that, although the author may have been involved in politics on behalf of the United National Party, his political profile was not significant enough to warrant ongoing adverse interest in him by the United People’s Freedom Alliance, its supporting factions or the Sri Lankan authorities. The State party’s authorities questioned the veracity of the author’s claims that he was pursued by United People’s Freedom Alliance associates several months after the election, and asserted that the fact that he was never attacked by any members of the Alliance weakened his claim that he was of such interest to it. The Committee further notes that the State party considered that the complainant’s low-level political engagement ended after the 2010 elections; that his fear of persecution on grounds of being a failed asylum seeker did not amount to a real chance of serious harm or a risk of torture as the domestic authorities were not satisfied that returned asylum seekers were being detained or charged in relation to their illegal departure by the Sri Lankan authorities; and that Sinhalese Catholics do not have a profile of risk in Sri Lanka and that no incidents proving otherwise had been reported in the relevant region. 11 12 13 No medical evidence has been submitted to support those claims. No further details have been provided and that information appears to be inconsistent with the complainant’s earlier statements. See the Committee’s general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22, paras. 11 and 38. 9