CAT/C/60/D/708/2015 5.9 The complainant submits that, while all these points are of relevance to his situation, he would particularly emphasize that real or perceived links with LTTE, or even indirect links through family members, put a returning person of Tamil ethnicity at a real and substantial risk of future torture. 5.10 The complainant also refers to an update of the Freedom from Torture report, published in May 2016, stating that: “In light of this evidence from Freedom from Torture and others about torture and persecution of people returning to Sri Lanka after the end of the civil war, the UN has called upon member states to ensure ‘a policy of non-refoulement of Tamils who have suffered torture and other human rights violations until guarantees of non-recurrence are sufficient to ensure that they will not be subject to further abuse, in particular torture and sexual violence’.”42 5.11 The complainant submits that the most recent assessment of his situation was an international treaties obligation assessment, handed over on 30 April 2015, according to which the State party does not have non-refoulement obligations in his case. He states that, despite providing the photograph which confirms that he was an LTTE supporter to the authorities in October 2015, those obligations were not reassessed. He also claims that the country information he submitted to the Committee was made public after the international treaties obligation assessment decision in April 2015 and that this information demonstrates that he would be personally at risk of torture if he returned to Sri Lanka. The complainant also submits that he has a brother who is now a refugee in Switzerland and that the State party would violate his rights under article 3 of the Convention should he be forcibly returned to Sri Lanka. State party’s additional information 6. On 21 September 2016, the State party referred to the complainant’s submission dated 31 July 2016 and submitted that it did not contain any information which could change the assessment that the complainant’s claims did not engage the State party’s nonrefoulement obligations under article 3 of the Convention. The State party further reiterated its submissions of 27 April 2016. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 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. 7.2 The Committee notes the State party’s submission that the present communication is manifestly unfounded and thus inadmissible pursuant to rule 113 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. The Committee considers that the communication has been substantiated for the purpose of admissibility, as the complainant has sufficiently detailed the facts and the basis of the claim for a decision by the Committee. 7.3 The Committee further 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. 7.4 As the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the communication submitted under article 3 of the Convention admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. 42 10 The Freedom from Torture report, updated on 4 May 2016, refers to the report on the OHCHR investigation into Sri Lanka (A/HRC/30/CRP.2, recommendation No. 37, p. 251).