CAT/C/58/D/609/2014 2.6 On 20 September 2013, the NGO “RISE”, representing the complainant, submitted a request for ministerial intervention to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, which was rejected on 28 April 2014. The complaint 3. The complainant claims that, because he is a suspected LTTE supporter, if he is returned to Sri Lanka, he will be arrested, interrogated, imprisoned and beaten or killed by the Sri Lanka Army, the Criminal Investigation Department, the police or political groups assisting the Government in identifying LTTE supporters. He alleges that he will attract the attention of the security forces on his arrival and they will soon discover that he evaded internment when he was hospitalized with wounds from shelling during the war and he will be suspected of LTTE links. He also claims that failed asylum seekers are immediately identified and detained by the security forces at the airport. On the basis of the above allegations, the complainant claims that the State party will violate article 3 of the Convention if he is removed to Sri Lanka. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 12 December 2014, the State party requested the Committee to lift interim measures. It also submitted that the author had failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility and thus his complaint should be found inadmissible as manifestly unfounded. However, should the Committee find the case admissible, the State party maintains that the complainant’s allegations lack merit. 4.2 The State party submitted that the complainant’s claims were thoroughly considered by a series of domestic decision makers, including the Department of Immigration and Citizen, which determines refugee status, and the Refugee Review Tribunal, which carried out the independent merits review, and were subject to judicial review by the Federal Circuit Court and the Federal Court of Australia. It summarized the findings of the domestic authorities in the case and referred to the Committee’s general comment No. 1, in which it is stated that the Committee is not an appellate or judicial body and that it gives considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by organs of a State party.3 4.3 On 22 May 2015, the State party reiterated its observations of 12 December 2014 and submitted a new request to lift interim measures. Additional information from the complainant 5.1 On 14 July 2015, the complainant submitted his comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits and the requests to lift interim measures. The complainant insisted that the interim measures be maintained and claimed that his complaint was admissible. He stated that the independent merits review was unfair in that the reviewer found him not credible on the basis of simple discrepancies and the psychological report indicating that he suffered from the post-traumatic stress disorder was not taken into account. 5.2 The complainant also stated that the fact that he was not a military trained official of LTTE did not automatically exclude him from being vulnerable and that he fell under at least two categories defined in the UNHCR 2010 Eligibility Guidelines as vulnerable: a member of an LTTE veteran’s family (Maha Veeran); and a supplier of LTTE as a tailor who made their uniforms. 3 4 See the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention, para. 9 (a).