CAT/C/56/D/594/2014 Furthermore, an in-depth asylum interview was held on 31 May 2013, at which the complainant accounted for his reasons to seek asylum in the presence of his public counsel and an interpreter. That interview lasted for two hours. In addition, on 16 July 2013, the complainant submitted supplementary written observations regarding his grounds for asylum. In those observations, he confirmed what had been recorded in the minutes of the interview held on 31 May 2013. The State party therefore considers that the complainant has had the opportunity to present all his grounds for asylum to the migration authorities, both orally and in writing, and that there is no reason to conclude that the national rulings were inadequate or that the outcome of the domestic proceedings was arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 6.4 In addition, the State party draws the Committee’s attention to the fact that the expulsion decision regarding the complainant will become statute-barred on 3 February 2018. It therefore requests the Committee to consider the admissibility and/or merits of the present communication well in time before that date. 6.5 In summary, the State party considers that the complainant’s claims are not credible and that the circumstances he invokes are not sufficient to demonstrate that he faces a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture in case of his forced removal to Algeria. 6.6 The State party also maintains its position regarding the admissibility and the merits of the present complaint. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claims contained in a complaint, 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 recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any complaint 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 does not challenge the assumption that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. 7.3 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the complaint should be held inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. The Committee, however, considers that the complaint has been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility, because the complainant’s allegations of a risk of torture or ill-treatment in case of his forced removal to Algeria raise issues under article 3 of the Convention. As the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the communication admissible. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the present complaint in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties concerned, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 8.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the forced removal of the complainant to Algeria would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return (“refouler”) a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 12