Advance unedited version CAT/C/60/D/716/2015 that the advice was provided after the application was filed by the complainant in August 2013; that in any case this procedural defect did not prevent the complainant from having his application heard and determined by the FCCA; and that subsequently he was represented by counsel in his appeal of the FCCA’s decision to the FCA. 6.3 The country information reports provided by the complainant, such as the Edmund Rice Centre report,12 do not support his allegations of risk of torture if returned to Sri Lanka. As to the 2016 ‘Preliminary observations and recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, on the Official joint visit to Sri Lanka – 29 April to 7 May 2016’ the State party maintains that nothing in the observations of the Special Rapporteur supports the conclusion that the complainant would be detained by the TID, nor has he claimed that he would be at risk of detention by the TID. The Special Rapporteur suggests that torture is a common practice used in a majority of regular criminal investigations, and that prison conditions, such as overcrowding and dilapidated buildings, amount to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. However, the observations do not specifically consider the risk of torture associated with the return of persons who have departed Sri Lanka illegally and it is not clear that the process by which returnees may be charged with illegal departure should be understood as constituting a ‘regular criminal investigation’, as that term is used by the Special Rapporteur. Finally, concerning the report of the International Crisis Group, the State party notes that this report addresses events alleged to have occurred in 2002 and 2003 and does not substantiate the complainant’s claims to have been affected by Tamil-Muslim conflict between 2005 and 2012. 6.4 The State party reiterates its observation concerning the complainant’s mental health and points out that the two documents provided by the complainant to support his allegation of PTSD were issued by a social worker. However, social workers are neither trained nor qualified to make medical diagnoses. 6.5 The State party points out that the complainant has not provided any relevant evidence showing that he has links with the Australian Tamil Congress, or the Australian Tamil Congress links with the Tamil National Alliance. Nor has he articulated how these links relate to his allegations. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do so 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 has not contested that the complainant had exhausted all available 13 domestic remedies. The Committee therefore finds that the requirement under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention has been met. 12 Edmund Rice Centre, ‘Australian sponsored Torture in Sri Lanka? The unforeseen consequences of supporting a brutal regime to stop the boats at any cost’ (12 August 2015). See, for example, communication No. 455/2011, ​X.Q.L. v. Australia, decision adopted on 2 May 2014, para. 8.2. 13 9