CAT/C/68/D/718/2015 The complaint 3.1 The complainant claims that his deportation to Sri Lanka would constitute a violation of his rights under article 3 of the Convention. He claims that there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be detained, killed and/or suffer torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment at the hands of the Sri Lankan authorities. In particular, the complainant alleges that as a young Tamil male from the district of Jaffna, whose parents committed bribery to help him flee the country, he faces a real risk of ill-treatment upon his return. He submits that even though he, personally, has no connection with the Tamil Tigers, his brother’s former detention and torture, as a suspected supporter of the Tamil Tigers, suggest that he would also be regarded as affiliated with the Tamil Tigers. 3.2 He further claims that he would be interrogated upon his return and if he admits to having paid a bribe to the Karuna group, he would “face problems” with both the Sri Lankan security forces and the Karuna group. He further submits that he faces a risk of harm as a failed asylum seeker who has lived abroad for at least four years. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 2 and 12 June 2016, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. As to the issue of admissibility, the State party argues that the complainant’s claim under article 3 is manifestly ill-founded and should therefore be declared inadmissible, pursuant to rule 113 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure, for lack of sufficient substantiation. The State party also submits that the complainant’s claims are without merit, as they have not been supported by evidence that there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being tortured, as defined by article 1 of the Convention, upon his return to Sri Lanka. The State party requested the Committee to lift the request for interim measures under rule 114 of its rules of procedure. 4.2 The State party submits that most of the complainant’s claims have been thoroughly considered in a series of domestic decision-making processes and have been found not to engage its non-refoulement obligations under the Convention. The State party refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22 (para. 9),1 in which the Committee states that as it is not an appellate or quasijudicial body, it gives considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by the organs of a State party. 4.3 The State party provides thorough information on the decisions adopted by its domestic authorities. With regard to the proceedings before the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, the State party notes that the responsible authority thoroughly considered the complainant’s circumstances, including his Tamil ethnicity, his brother’s alleged involvement with the Tamil Tigers, the fact that his parents bribed the Karuna group to ensure his release from the refugee camp and his status as a failed asylum seeker. Nevertheless, having also considered the relevant country information, the responsible authority could not accept that the complainant would be of any interest to the authorities in Sri Lanka. 4.4 The complainant’s case was then referred to the independent protection assessment reviewer who was to make a recommendation to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection as to whether the complainant was a person to whom the State party owed protection obligations under the Migration Act. The independent protection assessment reviewer did not find it plausible that at the time when the complainant left the refugee camp, he was suspected by the authorities of having any links with the Tamil Tigers. In that respect, the reviewer was of the view that neither the State authorities nor the Karuna group would be concerned about the circumstances of the complainant’s departure, including the payment of a bribe, given his low profile and the fact that he left Sri Lanka with his own passport. Accordingly, the reviewer was not satisfied that the State party owed protection obligations, including non-refoulement obligations, to the complainant. 1 At its sixty-second session, the Committee adopted general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22, which has replaced general comment No. 1. 3