CAT/C/58/D/609/2014 that most families in the north of Sri Lanka where expected to provide a member to LTTE and families whose relatives died in the war received invitations to the commemoration ceremonies. The State party concluded that neither the invitation to the complainant’s family nor his brother’s purported profile with LTTE would draw the complainant to the authorities’ attention 14 years after his brother’s death. 6.5 Addressing the complainant’s allegation that he belonged to a vulnerable group under the UNCHR 2010 UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines because he supplied uniforms to LTTE, the State party referred to the finding of the reviewer that the complainant did not sew uniforms for LTTE. Accepting that the complainant might have sewn civilian clothing for LTTE, the reviewer concluded that this would not lead to his being at risk of torture upon return to Sri Lanka. 6.6 As for the new information regarding the complainant’s eldest brother being an LTTE intelligence officer, the State party considered it implausible that the complainant would raise claims regarding a member of the family who was suspected of supporting LTTE, but not raise any claims in relation to a family member who was actually part of the LTTE intelligence unit — a profile of significance in LTTE — and that such information would be provided only after he had exhausted all domestic remedies. 6.7 The State party referred to recent country information from both governmental and non-governmental sources,4 according to which, only Sri Lankan nationals with family links to high profile LTTE sympathizers might come to the authorities’ attention and be at risk of significant harm. The complainant did not provide the State party with any evidence that he had family links with a high-profile LTTE member or suspected member that would put him in danger of being subjected to torture in Sri Lanka. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 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. 7.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b), of the Convention, it shall not consider any complaint unless it has ascertained that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that, in the present case, the State party has not challenged the admissibility of the complaint on these grounds. 7.3 The complainant has claimed that his forcible removal to Sri Lanka would amount to a violation, by the State party, of article 3 of the Convention. The Committee takes note of the State party’s submission that the complainant failed to establish a prima facie case; however, it considers that the claims submitted by the complainant are closely related to the merits of the communication and should be considered at that stage. 7.4 As the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the communication admissible under article 3 of the Convention and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. 4 6 United States of America, Department of State, 2014 Country Report on Human Rights Practice, “Sri Lanka”, 25 June 2015; Amnesty International, Amnesty International Report 2014/15, “Sri Lanka”, 25 February 2015.