CAT/C/71/D/896/2018 who is of interest to the Government of Sri Lanka. The complainant’s additional statements in that regard, namely, that he has worked with persons identified as terrorists by the Government of Sri Lanka do not change the assessment that no evidence has been submitted to corroborate the complainant’s assertions in that regard. 4.8 The State party submits that, based on the domestic courts’ finding that the complainant lacked credibility and that he did not take part in the armed conflict in Sri Lanka, but instead performed marginal activities outside of his country of origin, it concludes that getting a tattoo in itself does not render him at risk of being perceived as a high-profile individual who would be of interest to the Sri Lankan authorities. With regard to the scars on the body of the complainant, the State party reiterates that the medical report does not discount possible causes other than his own story for the complainant’s injuries. In any event, given that there is no indication that the complainant has attracted the adverse attention of the Sri Lankan authorities, there is no reason to conclude that he would attract such attention merely because of his scars. 4.9 The State party submits that the fact that the complainant would be returned to Sri Lanka from the Netherlands without an identity card is not in itself sufficient reason to believe that he would be subjected to ill-treatment upon his return. It is argued by the State party that the Sri Lankan authorities are aware that many people emigrate for economic reasons and that every year the number of Tamil asylum seekers forcibly returned to Sri Lanka varies from a few to more than a thousand. While acknowledging that some returnees have become victims of treatment contrary to the Convention, that does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that every returnee faces such a risk. 4.10 In the light of the above information, the State party concludes that the complainant has not satisfactorily established that he would be subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention upon his return to Sri Lanka. Therefore, his removal to Sri Lanka would not constitute a breach thereof. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 5. On 18 July 2019, the complainant submitted comments on the State party’s observations on the merits of the communication. He objects primarily to the State party’s position that his account was found non-credible by the domestic authorities because of inconsistencies in his statements. He underlines that, in the first set of proceedings, he was represented by a counsel who had failed to explain before the State party’s authorities that the complainant had bribed his way out of detention, and therefore the State party’s arguments are not valid in that regard. He explains that he informed the State party that he had worked as a welder in a garage and repaired Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam vehicles that were used to transport weapons, food, medication, fuel and wounded militants, which is probably the reason why he had not been approached by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam earlier than 2008. He submits that he cannot recall any of the names of the leaders in the training camp, because their names were not revealed to the detainees, who were obliged to address the leaders as “elder brother” in the Tamil language. Regarding the State party’s argument about the complainant’s contradictory statements as to whether he had been digging trenches or bunkers, he submits that the misunderstanding is the result of a translation error. He notes that, contrary to the State party’s assertion, he gave a detailed account of the conditions of his detention. In that regard, the complainant refers to the minutes of his second interview. In addition, he contends that the State party draws unreasonable conclusions from the medical report issued by the Institute for Human Rights and Medical Assessment. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 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. 6