CAT/C/61/D/720/2015 danger to him now. He claims that there is the risk of a real danger to him and that the type of treatment to which he would be exposed qualifies as torture. Lastly, the complainant recalls that his profile has a number of elements that would put him at risk if returned: he is a Tamil from the North of Sri Lanka; he has already been tortured by the Sri Lanka police in relation to a bomb blast linked to LTTE; and he has already been detained by migration officials in Sri Lanka and only released by paying bribes. State party’s additional submission and request to lift interim measures 6.1 By note verbale of 6 April 2017, the State party reiterated its submission of 16 June 2016 and informed the Committee that it did not intend to file further submissions at this stage. 6.2 By note verbale of 12 May 2017, the State party requested the Committee to withdraw its request for interim measures on the basis of the conclusions reached in the domestic processes, as outlined in previous submissions. 30 Complainant’s comments on the State party’s additional submission 7. On 20 June 2017, the complainant’s representative resubmitted his comments of 16 November 2016. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 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. 8.2 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 substantiated for the purposes of admissibility, as the complainant has sufficiently detailed the facts and the basis of his claim for the Committee’s consideration. 8.3 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. It notes that, in the present case, the State party has not contested that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee therefore finds that it is not precluded by article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention from examining the present case. As the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 In accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, the Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties. 9.2 In the present case, the Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to Sri Lanka. In assessing that risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3 (2) of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the Committee recalls that the aim of determination is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would be returned. It follows 30 12 The previous submissions are annexed to the note verbale.