Advance unedited version CAT/C/57/D/709/2015 his opinion, the decisions of the domestic authorities were arbitrary, except the argument that his story was inconsistent due to the stress caused by the numerous interviews during the asylum process. The Committee observes, however, that the negative asylum decision of the domestic authorities was not based exclusively on the inconsistencies in the complainant’s story, but was as well motivated by other considerations, and in particular by the two documents found on him at the moment of his arrest in August 2014 (see para 2.2 supra). The Committee notes that the complainant has not addressed this fact in his submission. 4.3 The Committee considers that in the particular circumstances of the present case, the limited information presented by the complainant is not sufficient to permit either establishing of the risk of torture for him in Nigeria by the DSSS or by A.U., or verifying the arbitrariness in the decisions of the domestic immigration and other authorities in his asylum case. In these circumstances, the Committee concludes that the complainant has failed to sufficiently substantiate his claims, for the purposes of admissibility. 5. The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 2 of the Convention; (b) That this decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the complainant. 3