CAT/C/59/D/652/2015 2.16 On 9 December 2014, the complainant was informed that the Minister had refused to allow the discretionary remedies. The complainant submits that as a result, the Tribunal’s decision is final and that he has exhausted domestic remedies. The complaint 3. The complainant submits that his deportation to Sri Lanka would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligations under the Convention. He is at risk of serious and foreseeable harm if returned to his country of origin, as a Tamil from the Eastern Province of Sri Lanka who was formerly known for LTTE activities. He was accused of having connections with LTTE in the past and had been detained by the authorities for 1 1/2 years, during which he was subjected to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment. While in detention, he forcibly signed a confession of involvement with LTTE, which he fears might be used against him again. He also angered an influential member of Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pullikal. Finally, he departed Sri Lanka illegally and sought asylum in Australia. He fears that Sri Lankan authorities will detain him upon his return and that he will be tortured, subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment and possibly killed by the Sri Lankan authorities.4 State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 12 October 2015, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits of the complaint. It submits that the complainant’s allegations relating to inhuman and degrading treatment are inadmissible ratione materiae and should be rejected under article 22 (2) of the Convention and rule 113 (c) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. In this regard, it maintains that the obligation of non-refoulement is confined to torture and does not extend to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The State party further submits that the complaint is manifestly unfounded and therefore inadmissible under rule 113 (b) of the rules of procedure. Should the Committee find that the complainant’s allegations are admissible, the State party submits that there is no supported evidence or substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being tortured if returned to Sri Lanka. 4.2 The complainant’s claims were considered during the protection visa application procedure by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, the Refugee Review Tribunal, the Federal Circuit Court, the Federal Court and the High Court of Australia. These robust domestic processes have considered and determined that the claims were not credible and did not engage the State party’s non-refoulement obligations. The complainant has not provided any relevant new evidence in his submissions to the Committee that has not already been considered through the extensive domestic judicial proceedings. 4.3 The State party recalls that the Department of Immigration and Border Protection found that the complainant did not face a real risk of harm if returned to Sri Lanka. Subsequently, the Refugee Review Tribunal carried out an external merits review of the Department’s decision. The Tribunal received oral submissions from the complainant with the assistance of an interpreter. It raised doubts in relation to the credibility of his claims and the overall evidence he had provided. The Tribunal also expressed doubts about the credibility of the complainant’s evidence concerning his detention in 1993-1994. Nevertheless, it found that, even if he were given the benefit of the doubt concerning this allegation, there was no corroboration that the complainant had encountered problems 4 The complainant refers to the updated UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum Seekers From Sri Lanka, issued in 2012; Human Rights Watch, World Report 2014: Sri Lanka; and Amnesty International, Locked Away: Sri Lanka’s Security Detainees, 2012. 5