CAT/C/59/D/633/2014 Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 8 August 2016, the complainant submitted that he was a rickshaw driver with minimum education from Sri Lanka and that he had been at the mercy of the governmentappointed migration agents under the Immigration Advice and Application Assistance Scheme (a scheme aimed at assisting applicants to prepare forms and statements in English through interpreters). He was held in immigration detention in remote locations and had attempted to instruct his counsel by telephone over different time zones. That had limited his ability to provide all the necessary information and details, as instructions usually had to be provided to meet short deadlines, and restricted his availability to receive instructions by telephone as opposed to in a face-to-face consultation in an office setting. He maintained that he had been subjected to numerous official interviews with the immigration authorities and RRT. All the interviews had been “inquisitorial in nature” in that the official asked the questions and the complainant answered through an interpreter. The complainant’s migration agent had been present at immigration and RRT interviews. With each interview, the complainant had been able to provide more detail, as the migration agent or the officials asked for further information and the migration agent drafted more detailed written statements. The different stages of the refugee determination process had led to new claims and had resulted in the alleged inconsistencies in the complainant’s statement, especially as the memory fades over time or owing to trauma, such as being held in immigration detention for a prolonged period. The complainant’s representative, who was engaged for the ministerial intervention and the complaint submitted to the Committee, asked the complainant more probing questions and requested documentary evidence regarding the new information and claims. The fact that new documentation was produced and claims were made late in the refugee determination process, or to the Committee, did not mean that they were not true and would not require genuine and proper consideration. 5.2 The complainant also maintained that the ministerial intervention process lacked transparency as the decision maker did not provide any reasoning as to why the complainant’s request did not meet ministerial guidelines or why he would not be able to make a successful protection visa application. The Minister appeared to be influenced adversely by any credibility finding that RRT made. The allegations of harassment of the complainant’s wife, torture of his father and eviction from the family house during the civil war were all serious matters that required genuine and proper consideration. The complainant submitted that the Government of the State party was “compromised in its trade deals with the Sri Lankan government” by providing money and material, including monitoring and surveillance technology and hardware worth millions of dollars to the Sri Lankan police and security forces. The complainant submitted that the Edmund Rice Centre had documented torture of other failed asylum seekers after they had been returned to Sri Lanka. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 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. 6.2 The Committee notes the State party’s submission that the present communication is manifestly unfounded and thus inadmissible pursuant to rule 113 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. The Committee, however, considers that the communication has been 10