CAT/C/61/D/720/2015 had not incurred any legal error. Thus, the Federal Circuit Court dismissed the complainant’s application for judicial review. 2.5. The complainant appealed that decision before the Federal Court of Australia, where the matter was heard on 23 February 2015. He contended that the Refugee Review Tribunal did not take into account some of the evidence 8 that he had presented. On 2 March 2015, the Federal Court upheld the decision of the Federal Circuit Court and dismissed the appeal. On 3 June 2015, the complainant’s application to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection for Ministerial intervention9 was rejected.10 The complaint 3.1 The complainant submits that if he is returned to Sri Lanka, he faces a real risk of being tortured and subjected to cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment and punishment at the hands of the Criminal Investigation Department and the paramilitary groups associated with the Government of Sri Lanka. 11 Therefore, Australia would be violating article 3 of the Convention, in particular the non-refoulement obligation. He states that internal relocation in Sri Lanka is not an option, since the Government now controls the whole country and those who departed illegally and/or failed asylum seekers are immediately detected and taken into custody by the authorities upon arrival at Colombo Airport. 3.2. The complainant claims that there are substantial grounds to believe that he would be at a real risk if he is returned to Sri Lanka, as he is a young Tamil man who would be suspected of being affiliated with LTTE.12 He submits that, if he is returned to Sri Lanka, it is likely that he will be detained in Negombo Remand Prison. He states that it is well documented that the prison is cramped and unsanitary; there is little chance to exercise; and it is overcrowded to the extent that the prisoners have to take turns to sleep. He submits that that alone constitutes degrading treatment, regardless of the length of time spent there on remand. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits, and request to lift interim measures 4.1 By note verbale of 16 June 2016, the State party provided its observations on the admissibility and merits of the complainant’s communication and requested the Committee to lift the interim measures. 4.2 The State party submits that the complainant’s allegations are inadmissible on the ground that his claims are manifestly unfounded pursuant to rule 113 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. However, should the Committee consider the complainant’s allegations admissible, the claims are without merit as they have not been supported by evidence showing that there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being tortured, as defined in article 1 of the Convention upon return to Sri Lanka. 8 9 10 11 12 The complainant submitted that the Tribunal’s finding was in relation to a risk of harm by the Sri Lanka authorities and not to his claim of risk of harm from persons other than the authorities, such as armed groups. Requested further to section 417 of the Migration Act (1958). The complainant alleges that he is unable to locate the copy of the letter from the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection rejecting his request for Ministerial intervention. He asserts that, owing to his frequent change of residence, some of his personal effects, including the letter, have been misplaced. The complainant annexes the results of a study carried out by the Edmund Rice Centre (published in 2015) on the case of four returnees from Australia who had been tortured by the Sri Lanka security agencies and paramilitary organizations after their return to Sri Lanka. He also provides a report by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) investigation team in Sri Lanka dated 16 September 2015 (A/HRC/30/CRP.2) which highlights that torture is prevalent in the country. The complainant provides Human Rights Watch, World Report 2015: Sri Lanka, which indicates that “the government’s treatment of Tamils forcibly returned to Sri Lanka after being denied asylum overseas continues to be a significant concern”. 3