CCPR/C/127/D/2276/2013 be an LTTE supporter. As concerns the rest of the claims, the author refers to his initial submission of 20 July 2013. From the State party 6.4 On 16 November 2018, the State party submitted further observations on the communication. It noted that on 29 January 2018, the Federal Court had dismissed the author’s application for judicial review of the negative pre-removal risk assessment decision of 31 May 2017. It noted that in his application for judicial review, the author had argued that the pre-removal risk assessment officer had failed to assess his specific personal circumstances and profile in light of the most recent country evidence. The Court determined that the pre-removal risk assessment officer had examined the evidence submitted by the author, consulted the most recent documentary evidence available and come to the conclusion that the author did not have a profile that would indicate that he would be at risk upon return to Sri Lanka. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee notes that the State party has submitted that the communication should be declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies as the author made an application for a pre-removal risk assessment and applied for permanent residence on the basis of humanitarian and compassionate grounds after having submitted his communication before the Committee. However, the Committee also notes that the State party has acknowledged that these procedures were not available to the author at the time he submitted his communication before the Committee, at which point he was facing imminent removal to Sri Lanka. Additionally, the Committee notes that after the author became eligible to file a pre-removal risk assessment application, he made such an application, and also filed a subsequent request for review of the negative determination of this application. Accordingly, the Committee considers that it is not precluded from examining the communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 7.4 The Committee notes that the author has claimed that his removal to Sri Lanka would amount to a violation of his rights under articles 23 (1) and 24 (1) of the Covenant. The Committee notes that the author has not provided any information or substantiation as to why he considers that his rights under these provisions would be violated if he were to be removed to Sri Lanka. Accordingly, it declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7.5 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegations under article 9 (1) of the Covenant that he would be at risk of arbitrary detention upon return to Sri Lanka. The Committee also takes note of the State party’s argument that its non-refoulement obligation does not extend to an obligation to refrain from removing individuals who face a risk of arbitrary detention in the receiving State. The Committee considers that the author has failed to substantiate, for the purpose of admissibility, how this claim would raise a separate issue from his claims under articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant. 6 Accordingly, the Committee considers that he has failed to substantiate this claim for the purposes of admissibility and therefore considers this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6 8 Y. v. Canada (CCPR/C/114/D/2280/2013), para. 6.5; X. v. Canada (CCPR/C/115/D/2366/2014), para. 8.5; and Y. v. Canada (CCPR/C/116/D/2314/2013), para. 6.5.