CAT/C/68/D/718/2015 4.5 The State party further notes that the Federal Circuit Court, claiming the lack of error in application of the law, dismissed the complainant’s application for a judicial review of the recommendation of the independent protection assessment reviewer. The complainant’s claim was further rejected by the Federal Court of Australia and by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. 4.6 The State party states that the relevant country information has already been considered under domestic processes and that the newly submitted reports about the illtreatment of failed asylum seekers and Tamil individuals with suspected connections to the Tamil Tigers do not establish the existence of additional grounds to show that the complainant would be at a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture if returned to Sri Lanka. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 12 August 2016, the complainant commented on the State party’s observations. In response to the State party’s allegation about the lack of personal harm to the complainant upon his return, he reiterates that he is at personal risk of torture if he were to be forcibly removed to Sri Lanka. He provides the Committee with letters from his mother, sister, brother and an attorney attesting to his statement that he would face personal risk of torture at the hands of the Sri Lankan army upon his return, as happened to his older brother. The complainant further submits that despite his brother’s release, the army continues to ask questions of him from time to time, including about the complainant’s whereabouts. 5.2 The complainant further reiterates that even though he denied having any connections with the Tamil Tigers, the army did not believe him and he was suspected of having links with them. He further refers to numerous country reports in order to show that persons of Tamil ethnicity continue to be targeted in Sri Lanka.2 He reiterates that as a failed asylum seeker he faces a heightened risk of ill-treatment, as the reports show that returnees are subject to ill-treatment by the Sri Lankan authorities. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether the communication 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 challenged the admissibility of the complaint on this ground. Accordingly, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by article 22 (5) (b) from examining the present communication. 6.3 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the communication is inadmissible as manifestly unfounded, since the complainant has not provided proof of the existence of substantial grounds for believing that he would face a foreseeable, present, personal and real risk of harm, including torture if he were returned to Sri Lanka. The Committee considers, however, that the communication has been substantiated for the purposes of admissibility, as the complainant has sufficiently detailed the facts and the basis of his claim for a decision by the Committee. As the Committee finds no obstacles to admissibility, it declares the communication submitted under article 3 of the Convention admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. 2 4 For example, Amnesty International, Amnesty Report 2014/2015. The State of the World’s Human Rights; and Human Rights Watch, World Report 2015.