CAT/C/62/D/685/2015 and the possibility that the male complainant may face criminal prosecution in Armenia, were found to be credible by the domestic authorities and that there was therefore no reason to refer the complainants to the extended asylum procedure to enable them to further substantiate their factual account with documents. The State party also notes that the complainants did not request to be referred to the extended asylum procedure. It argues that the documents submitted by the complainants in their second and third asylum applications did not give any reason to conclude that an expulsion to Armenia would involve a real risk of a violation of article 3 of the Convention, as the documents only served to further substantiate facts which had already been found to be credible in the first asylum procedure, but had also been found insufficient to establish the existence of the aforementioned risk. 6.3 The State party notes that the male complainant claims that he is at risk of being tortured by the police upon return to Armenia, in order to extract a forced confession. The State party reiterates that according to the male complainant’s own statements, he was not ill-treated or tortured by the Armenian police when he was initially apprehended in possession of drugs and subsequently detained, and that it is therefore difficult to understand why he would now be treated differently in case of return to Armenia. The State party submits that although country reports indicate that ill-treatment by authority figures still occurs, especially by the police during the arrest and interrogation of civilians, this information does not justify the conclusion that such ill-treatment is systematic and that every civilian who is arrested risks facing such treatment. 6.4 The State party notes that the complainants claim that upon return to Armenia the male complainant will face physical violence and interference in his criminal trial at the hands of D.M. or a local clan, and that the Armenian authorities will be unable to protect him. The State party argues that the complainants have not substantiated the claim that D.M. has any connections to the Armenian authorities or that he is in a position to exert influence over those authorities. It notes that the complainants’ claim that D.M. may be in charge of a police department in Yerevan dates back to an Internet blog post written by a private individual in 2003 and that the website of the police in Armenia provides no indication that D.M. is in charge of any branch of the police. The State party also argues that the complainants have failed to establish that there is a connection between D.M. and the clan, or that the clan has shown any interest in the complainants. The State party submits that the complainants have not established that the Armenian authorities would be unable to protect them from D.M. or the clan, should protection be required. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 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. 7.2 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 complainants have exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee therefore finds that it is not precluded from considering the communication under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. 7.3 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. Consideration of the merits 8.1 In accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, the Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties. 7