CAT/C/59/D/652/2015 5.3 The complainant submits that on 16 January 1988, his brother went to deliver food to his father, who was working. On his way, he was intercepted by members of the Sri Lankan army and taken into custody to an army camp under suspicion of being an LTTE member. Afterwards, he was killed and burned on a tyre pyre. 6 Additional submissions by the parties By the State party 6. On 31 March 2016, the State party pointed out that the complainant’s comments on its observations had raised new allegations that were not presented during the visa protection proceedings, in particular the allegations concerning the alleged problems with LTTE, the Eelam People’s Revolutionary Liberation Front and the Karuna group in 2004. Nor did he argue that he would be at risk of harm upon return to Sri Lanka as a result of this alleged event. Furthermore, an assessor was unable to assess the untranslated documentary evidence submitted by the complainant. Accordingly, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection concluded that these allegations were not substantiated or credible. Likewise, he did not raise the allegation about the alleged detention and killing of his brother by the Sri Lankan army. The Department accepted that the brother had been killed in a crossfire and took the death certificate into account in assessing his application. However, the complainant did not substantiate how this element specifically related to his return to Sri Lanka or why he would be harmed because of it. By the complainant 7. On 9 May 2016, the complainant provided a further submission. He argues that there was an ongoing situation of general violence in Sri Lanka and a denial of responsibility visà-vis crimes committed against the Tamils during the civil war. Risks of serious harm still exist for individuals with real or perceived connections to LTTE, as in his case. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 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. 8.2 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 contested that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies.7 The Committee therefore finds that it is not precluded from considering the communication under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. 8.3 As regards the arguments by the State party that the complaint should be declared inadmissible on the grounds that it is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention or manifestly unfounded, the Committee considers that these arguments are closely related to 6 7 The complainant provides a death certificate dated 13 February 1995 stating that a person called C.S. died on 16 January 1988, and giving the cause of death as “being caught in the cross-firing between both parties” and stating that the “place of burial is not known”. See, for example, communication No. 455/2011, X.Q.L. v. Australia, decision adopted on 2 May 2014, para. 8.2. 7