CAT/C/59/D/633/2014 satisfied that there was a real chance that he would be targeted should he return to Sri Lanka. The complainant maintains that he has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The complaint 3. The complainant submitted that, as he left Sri Lanka illegally, should he be returned to Sri Lanka, he would be detained upon arrival and interrogated, charged and held on remand for offences in relation to his illegal departure. He claimed that he was at real risk of being tortured and suffering cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment at the hands of the Sri Lankan authorities because he is an ethnic Tamil. Furthermore, he feared that his ethnicity would result in him being imputed to be a political supporter of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. That fear was reinforced by the fact that his father and his aunt had been subjected to cruel treatment because of those suspicions. The complainant therefore maintained that his return to Sri Lanka, if implemented, would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 3 September 2015, the State party submitted that the complainant’s allegations were inadmissible on the ground that they were manifestly unfounded pursuant to rule 113 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. The State party maintained that, should the Committee find the allegations admissible, they were without merit as they had not been supported by evidence that there were substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being tortured, as defined in article 1 of the Convention. 4.2 The State party submitted that the complainant, a Sri Lankan national of Tamil ethnicity, arrived in Australia by boat. The complainant did not possess a valid visa for entry into Australia and was detained upon arrival. He remained in immigration detention until 13 September 2012, when he was issued with a bridging (general) visa, which expired on 19 June 2015. 4.3 The State party submitted that the complainant alleged that it would be in violation of article 3 of the Convention if it removed the complainant to Sri Lanka, since he would be arbitrarily detained, imprisoned and interrogated by the Sri Lankan authorities about his illegal departure from Sri Lanka and his suspected links with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. He also appeared to claim that there was a real risk that he would be subjected to ongoing harassment amounting to torture by the Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal and the Sri Lankan Criminal Investigation Department if he were to return to his native Batticaloa region. 4.4 The State party maintained that article 3 of the Convention provides that State parties have an obligation not to return a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 1 The Committee’s views in G.R.B. v. Sweden confirm that the obligation under article 3 must be interpreted by reference to the definition of torture set out in article 1 of the Convention. 2 Under that definition, several elements must exist in order for an act to constitute torture. Firstly, it must cause the person severe pain or suffering. The pain or suffering may be mental or physical. Secondly, it must be intentionally inflicted on the person for such purposes as obtaining information or a confession, punishment for an act the person or a third person has or is suspected of having committed, or intimidation or coercion of the person or a third party, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind. Thirdly, the pain or suffering must be inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or 1 2 See communication No. 39/1996, Tapia Paez v. Sweden, Views adopted on 28 April 1997, para 14.5. See communication No. 83/1997, G.R.B. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 15 May 1998, para. 6.5. 3