CAT/C/61/D/713/2015 home area when he was a student. He also argues that it is not necessary to have a high profile to risk abduction by a “white van” and refers, among others, to his submission and a testimony of a young Tamil returnee — a failed asylum seeker without a high political profile — who was detained at the airport and tortured. Additional submissions by the parties 6. On 12 May and 8 June 2017, the State party requested the Committee to lift the interim measures. 7. The complainant submitted his comments to the State party’s requests on 14 June 2017 reiterating his claim that he would be at risk of unlawful detention, torture and abduction. 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 recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any complaint unless it has ascertained that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted. The Committee notes that, in the present case, the State party has not challenged the admissibility of the complaint on this ground. 8.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the complaint should be declared inadmissible for lack of substantiation. The Committee, however, considers that the arguments before it raise substantive issues under article 3 of the Convention, which should be dealt with on the merits and not on admissibility considerations alone. As the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the present complaint 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 In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the return 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 (refouler) 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 return to Sri Lanka. In assessing that risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3 (2) of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. In this context, the Committee refers to its consideration of the fifth periodic report of Sri Lanka, 1 during which it voiced serious concerns about reports suggesting that abductions, torture and illtreatment perpetrated by State security forces in Sri Lanka, including the police, had continued in many parts of the country after the conflict with LTTE had ended in May 2009. 2 The Committee had also expressed concern at reprisals against victims and witnesses of acts of torture and at acts of abduction and torture in unacknowledged detention facilities, and had enquired whether a prompt, impartial and effective investigation of such acts had been undertaken.3 However, the Committee recalls that the 1 2 3 4 See CAT/C/SR.1472 and 1475; and CAT/C/LKA/CO/5, paras. 9-12. See CAT/C/LKA/CO/3-4, para. 6. See CAT/C/SR.1472, paras. 36 and 42; and CAT/C/SR.1475, paras. 10 and 27.