5.3 The complainant also disagrees that he should show direct evidence that he would be subjected to torture in Somalia, contending instead that it is rare that corroboration of specific threats can be provided. The complainant disagrees that he could be relocated to a part of Somalia other than the Bay region where he originates, noting simply that UNHCR does not currently repatriate persons in the complainant’s position to either the Puntland or Somaliland regions. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 6.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. 6.2 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee Against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 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. The Committee has also ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5(b), of the Convention, that available domestic remedies have been exhausted. 6.3 The Committee considers that the communication has been substantiated for purposes of admissibility, sufficiently elaborating the facts and the basis of the claim for a decision by the Committee. As to the State party’s arguments as to inadmissibility ratione materiae of the communication, the Committee considers it preferable to examine issues of the scope of articles 1 and 3, and the application thereof to the instant facts, at the merits stage of the communication. Accordingly, the Committee finds that no obstacles to the admissibility of the communication exist. Since both the State party and the complainant have provided observations on the merits of the communication, the Committee proceeds immediately with the consideration of the merits. 6.4 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that the State party’s obligation under article 3 to refrain from forcibly returning a person to another State where there are substantial grounds of a risk of torture, as defined in article 1 of the Convention, which requires actions by “a public official or other person acting in an official capacity”. Accordingly, in G.R.B. v Sweden, the Committee considered that allegations of a risk of torture at the hands of Sendero Luminoso, a non-State entity controlling significant portions of Peru, fell outside the scope of article 3 of the Convention. In Elmi v Australia, the Committee considered that, in the exceptional circumstance of State authority that was wholly lacking, acts by groups exercising quasi-governmental authority could fall within the definition of article 1, and thus call for the application of article 3. The Committee considers that, with three years elapsing since the Elmi decision, Somalia currently possesses a State authority in the form of the Transitional National Government, which has relations with the international community in its capacity as central government, though some doubts may exist as to the reach of its territorial authority and its permanence. Accordingly, the Committee does not consider this case to fall within the exceptional situation in Elmi, and takes the view that acts of such entities as are now in Somalia commonly fall outside the scope of article 3 of the Convention. 9 10 6.5 Moreover, the Committee has taken into account all relevant considerations, including the existence in the State party of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights, although the existence of 9 Op.cit. Op.cit. 10 7