CAT/C/58/D/595/2014 seekers were immediately detected and taken into custody by the Sri Lankan authorities upon their arrival at Colombo Airport. 3.3 The complainant therefore maintains that his return to Sri Lanka, if implemented, would constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 7 November 2014, the State party submitted that the complainant’s allegations were inadmissible as they were manifestly unfounded pursuant to rule 113 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. Should the Committee find the allegations admissible, the State party maintains that they are without merit as they have not been supported by sufficient evidence that there were substantial grounds for believing that the complainant was in danger of being tortured as defined in article 1 of the Convention. 4.2 The State party made reference to the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, which outlined non-refoulement standards, and to the Committee’s decision in G.R.B. v. Sweden.1 The State party maintained that the complainant had failed to establish a prima facie case that there was a foreseeable, real and personal risk that he would be subjected to torture if returned to Sri Lanka. The complainant’s claims had been thoroughly considered by the State party’s “robust and comprehensive domestic administrative and judicial process”, including by the Federal Circuit Court, and the State party took its obligations under the Convention seriously and implemented them in good faith through its domestic migration processes. The State party requests that the Committee accept that it has thoroughly assessed the complainant’s claims through its domestic processes and has found that it does not owe the author protection obligations under the Convention. 4.3 The complainant initially lodged an application for a protection visa on 7 July 2012. The decision maker conducted an interview with him with the assistance of an interpreter and considered relevant material such as country information provided by the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The complainant claimed that in April 2011, the Sri Lanka Army separated him from other villagers because of a physical scar on his body, detained him overnight in a Sri Lanka Army camp and interrogated him. He was slapped, his side was twisted and his father was beaten. He also claimed that in October 2011 four armed men arrived at his house, two of whom came into the house and accused him of being a member of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. After that incident, he moved to Gampaha. In March 2012, the complainant alleged, he was kidnapped by four men, kept in a room for a week, and then told that he must “join them” and that they would keep him locked up until he agreed. The complainant escaped and several days later departed for Australia. 4.4 The complainant claimed that he feared that if he were returned to Sri Lanka, he would be abducted and killed by the Sri Lanka Army or be forced to join a paramilitary group. He would be targeted because he was a young Tamil man and he would remain under suspicion of involvement with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam because of the scars on his body that resulted from shrapnel wounds he had suffered during the civil war. 4.5 The primary decision maker determined that the complainant’s claims lacked credibility, in particular doubting that the events that it was claimed had occurred in October 2011 and March 2012 had taken place. The primary decision maker concluded that the complainant did not have a significant profile that would draw particular adverse attention from the Sri Lanka Army, from government authorities or from any paramilitary 1 Communication No. 83/1997, Views adopted on 15 May 1998, para. 6.3. 3