CAT/C/63/D/618/2014 danger of being subjected to torture upon return to that country; additional grounds must exist to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk.9 The issues raised by the complainant in regard to the human rights violations in, and the return of asylum seekers to, Sri Lanka have been specifically and carefully considered by all domestic processes, with due account of the relevant background country information. 10 The relevant decision makers have consistently concluded that there are no substantial grounds for believing that the author is at a foreseeable, personal and real risk of torture if returned to Sri Lanka. The State party therefore submits that the author has not provided sufficient evidence that indicates that he would be personally at a real risk of harm, or that any adverse treatment would amount to torture under article 1 of the Convention. 5.12 The State party submits 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. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade reports indicate that where individuals are charged with section 45 B offences, they are typically detained for a matter of hours, charged and then released. The complainant alleges that the Negombo remand centre, where those charged with the section 45 B offence are allegedly taken is cramped, unsanitary and unhygienic and that to be held there constitutes degrading treatment. However, for the purposes of the Convention, these claims are not sufficient to invoke the non-refoulement obligations under article 3 of the Convention. Even if the State party accepted that the author was likely to face a short period of detention in such a facility, the complainant still does not face a real risk of torture, particularly given that he is not of Tamil ethnicity, nor does he have any links to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam or credible links to people smuggling operations. For that reason, the State party submits that the complainant’s claims are inadmissible and/or without merit. State party’s further submission 6.1 On 5 August 2016, the State party indicated that, having exhausted all domestic remedies, the complainant had no lawful right to remain in Australia. He was removed to Sri Lanka on 13 January 2015. On this occasion, the Government of Australia expressed its regret at the delay in providing the Committee with the updated information. 6.2 In view of that development, and given that the author has not provided any further information to the Committee in regard to his communication since his arrival in Sri Lanka, the State party requested that the Committee discontinue the examination of the complainant’s communication. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 7.1 On 1 December 2016, the complainant submitted that he was sent back to Colombo on 13 January 2015 with an escort consisting of two Australian security officers. Upon arrival, two Criminal Investigation Department officers led him away to an old room in the airport building. He was held in that same room for 24 hours and questioned every six hours. On 14 January 2015, the officers gave him a mobile telephone and asked him to inform his family of his whereabouts. 7.2 After that, a judge released him on bail of about 500,000 rupees, while requesting him to reappear in Negombo court on 25 January 2015. Since then, his case was heard about every five months. He appeared in the court for the last time on 21 June 2016. On that day, the judge questioned him about the name of the owner and the skipper of the vessel in which he had travelled to Australia. 9 10 8 See, e.g., G.R.B. v. Sweden, para. 6.3. The Australian authorities considered, inter alia, the information provided by: the Home Office of the United Kingdom, entitled Sri Lanka: Country of Origin Information (COI) Report, 7 March 2012; the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, August 2011; the United States State Department, entitled “Sri Lanka: 2011 country report on human rights practices”, 24 May 2012; and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), entitled “UNHCR eligibility guidelines for assessing the international protection needs of asylum-seekers from Sri Lanka”, 5 July 2010.