CAT/C/61/D/725/2016 Department regarding his connection with Tamil Tigers and about suffering a sexual assault by the officers. 2.10 The complainant also stated that, during their investigations into the incident at the university, Criminal Investigation Department officers had taken him to a building next to the police station in Eravur, where they told him that they knew about the involvement of his uncle and brother with the Tamil Tigers and started threatening him. He was beaten up, raped and sexually abused by the officers. 2.11 He states that the Criminal Investigation Department is harassing his father and wife and asking about him. He also fears the people of the van who threatened to kill him. He is afraid that a scar on his leg could be assumed to be a war scar by the authorities. 2.12 As to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, on 30 May 2012, the complainant applied to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship for a protection visa (class XA), which was denied on 23 August 2012. 2.13 On 14 September 2012, the complainant filed an application for review before the Refugee Review Tribunal. On 11 December 2012, he attended a hearing before the Tribunal and, on 1 August 2013, the Tribunal upheld the decision to refuse him a protection visa. 2.14 The complainant appealed to the Federal Court, which, on 12 February 2015, upheld the decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal. On 20 March 2015, the complainant filed a request for ministerial intervention (a discretionary remedy). That appeal was rejected on 1 June 2015. 2.15 On 2 August, a second request for ministerial intervention was filed on the basis of new information given by the complainant and a psychiatrist’s report. That appeal was rejected on 7 August 2015. 2.16 On 10 August, the second ministerial appeal was sent to a Senator and to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, with no response to date. The Senator’s office communicated that the Minister seemed not to be prepared to rule on the case. 2.17 On 10 November, the complainant filed an application for interlocutory relief to the Federal Court of Australia. That application was dismissed on 12 November 2015. He was detained on 14 January 2016. The complaint 3. The complainant claims that his deportation to Sri Lanka would violate his rights under article 3 of the Convention. He states that, since he (a) is Tamil and suspected of having links with the Tamil Tigers, who were allegedly involved in the vandalism incident, (b) claims to have already been tortured by Criminal Investigation Department officers and threatened to be killed by unknown persons, and (c) left the country illegally, he would upon return to Sri Lanka face arrest by the Criminal Investigation Department at the airport and torture by the authorities, which continue to harass his relatives and look for him. Therefore, in returning him to Sri Lanka, Australia would violate its obligations under article 3 of the Convention. State party submission on admissibility and merits and request to lift interim measures 4.1 In a note verbale dated 19 July 2016, the State party provided its observations on the admissibility and merits of the complainant’s communication and requested the Committee to withdraw its request for interim measures. 4.2 The State party submits that the complainant’s allegations are inadmissible on the ground that his claims are manifestly unfounded pursuant to rule 113 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. Should the Committee find that the allegations are admissible, the State party submits that the claims are without merit as they have not been supported by evidence that there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant is in danger of being tortured as defined by article 1 of the Convention. 3