CAT/C/58/D/595/2014 who were victims of or witnesses to war crimes, such as the shelling that injured him, are at risk in Sri Lanka, as the Government continues to resist credible investigations into war crimes allegations.6 The complainant also noted that the Refugee Review Tribunal decisions were largely based on credibility, and maintained that according to the law, questions of credibility could not be reviewed by the courts, since they only had jurisdiction to consider legal errors. He further noted that the State party had referred to the lower level of violence in Sri Lanka compared to the period before 2009 and had nominated some profiles of those that it considered to be at risk, but it had advanced no further arguments as to why the complainant’s arguments put forward to the Committee about why he would be at risk were not to be considered. He argues that the Committee should consider his particular circumstances, should not take the Refugee Review Tribunal’s negative credibility findings at face value and should not accept the opinion of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection unquestioningly. 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 considers, however, that the communication has been substantiated for the purposes of admissibility, as the complainant has detailed sufficiently the facts and the basis of the claim for a decision by the Committee. 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. The Committee notes that, in the present case, the State party has not contested that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. Accordingly, the Committee concludes 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 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 (4) of the Convention. 9.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the forced removal of the complainant to Sri Lanka would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 9.3 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 6 The complainant refers to the media articles available from http://tribune.com.pk/story/961509/srilanka-rejects-international-war-crimes-probe/ and from www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/srilanka-update-on-war-crimes-investigation-proposal. 7