CAT/C/65/D/801/2017 who make sure that the report has been drawn up carefully with regard to both its substance and the procedure followed, and that its content is clear. The staff member who conducts the check sees the documents on which the report is based. Only after the check has been done is a person-specific report used in reaching a decision. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs never provides information to the asylum seeker concerned or their authorized representative about the identity of the agents or informants who have assisted with the investigation, because this could expose the agents or informants to serious danger from the authorities or from the asylum seeker or his or her relatives or associates. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs does not provide information about the methods and techniques used to examine the information and documents submitted by asylum seekers, to avoid facilitating the making of forgeries or false accounts of events. The State party notes that the district courts and the Administrative Jurisdiction Division are able to base their judgments concerning a person-specific report in part on the documents used in drawing up that report, provided that both the asylum seeker and the State Secretary for Security and Justice have given their consent. Before the documents are examined, the district court or the Administrative Jurisdiction Division, with a judge or panel of judges different from those judging the asylum seeker’s application for judicial review or appeal in his or her asylum proceedings, decides whether the restrictions that have been placed on the asylum seeker’s access to the documents on which the person-specific report is based are justified. When the rejection of an application for a residence permit is based in part on a person-specific report, therefore, the way the Dutch asylum procedure is organized offers sufficient safeguards that an investigation can be conducted to ensure that the report was drawn up with due care. 4.8 The State party argues that the complainant has not adduced any specific reasons to doubt the accuracy or completeness of the person-specific report in his case. It argues that the confidential agents whose services were enlisted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs are well informed about the local situation and the local networks and are fully capable of assessing whether information is reliable and whether well-founded conclusions can be drawn. The State party submits that the complainant’s claim that the information provided to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is likely to be unreliable is entirely unsubstantiated and is of such a speculative nature that it cannot undermine the conclusions of the report and the decisions of the domestic authorities on the complainant’s application for asylum. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5. On 5 September 2018, the complainant submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. He reiterates the arguments of his initial submission and maintains that he has established that he would be at a real and foreseeable risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention if returned to Armenia. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 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. 6.2 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. The Committee therefore finds that it is not precluded from considering the communication under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. 6.3 As the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the complaint submitted under article 3 of the Convention admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. 5