CAT/C/53/D/519/2012 and will be imprisoned without trial and tortured. Finally, the complainant notes that, even if it is impossible to verify some of the aforementioned grounds and evidence independently, the stated facts and evidence as a whole indicate a reasonable probability that he faces a real and personal risk of torture in Myanmar. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. 8.2 Preliminarily, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the complainant has abused the right to submit such a communication within the meaning of article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention, since he has not been issued by the State party’s authorities with an order of deportation but with an order of departure, which requires him to voluntarily leave the State party’s territory. The complainant contested the State party’s argument, asserting that an order of departure still entails expulsion within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention. 8.3 The Committee notes that, in order for there to be abuse of the right to raise a matter before the Committee under article 22 of the Convention, one of the following conditions must be met: the submission of a matter to the Committee must amount to malice or a display of bad faith or intent at least to mislead, or be frivolous; or the acts or omissions referred to must have nothing to do with the Convention.1 In the present case, however, it cannot be ascertained that the complainant’s present communication has been submitted in bad faith or is frivolous, as the matter of the complaint raises issues under article 3 of the Convention. For that reason, the Committee concludes that the complainant has not abused the right to submit such a communication within the meaning of article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention. 8.4 The Committee has further ascertained, as required by article 22, paragraph 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, and notes that, as required by article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, domestic remedies have been exhausted. 8.5. Accordingly, the Committee finds no further objections to admissibility and declares the communication admissible, and proceeds to its consideration on the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 In accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, the Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties concerned. 9.2 In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the return of the complainant to Myanmar 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 or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 9.3 The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon 1 See for example communication No. 269/2005, Salem v. Tunisia, Views adopted on 7 November 2007, para. 8.4. 7