CAT/C/49/D/385/2009 dated 23 February 2010 in support of his claim. On 9 July 2010, the Migration Board decided not to grant the complainant a new examination, holding that both the Migration Board and the Migration Court had found reason to question the credibility of his earlier submissions, and that this new claim was merely an addition to those submissions. M.A.F. did not appeal this decision, but subsequently submitted another new application to the Migration Board for re-examination of his case, which was rejected on 26 October 2010. The Migration Board held that, as there had been doubts regarding M.A.F.’s identity, the letter he had submitted from the General People’s Committee for General Security summoning the complainant to the Department of Internal Security on 8 April 2008 could not be linked to him. Furthermore, the document was of a simple character and had been submitted only in copy, and so had limited value as evidence. The complainant appealed the Migration Board’s decision to the Migration Court. He submitted a letter that he claimed was the original summons from the General People’s Committee for General Security, but this letter differed in form and content from that submitted to the Migration Board. On 17 January 2011, the Migration Court rejected the complainant’s appeal, holding that neither the Board nor the Court had found that the complainant had made his identity probable and that the document, given its simple character and the lack of details as to how the complainant had obtained it, lacked real value as evidence. On 24 February 2011, the Migration Court of Appeal decided not to grant leave to appeal. 6.4 On 16 September 2011, the complainants were registered by the Migration Board as having absconded. 6.5 The State party notes that the Director for Legal Affairs at the Migration Board issued “legal standpoints” concerning Libya on 21 February 2011, 17 June 2011 and 25 October 2011. The legal standpoint of 25 October 2011 states that there is no functioning system for taking reasonable and necessary measures to prevent people being persecuted or suffering serious harm in Libya. However, given the substantially improved security situation, it may be possible, relevant and reasonable for a person to seek refuge elsewhere in the country, depending on their individual situation. The standpoint identifies particularly vulnerable groups, including those who risk being accused of loyalty to the previous Qaddafi Government, and internally displaced persons belonging to particular minorities. The standpoint notes reports of tensions in Tripoli, notably in and around districts in Abu Slem traditionally loyal to Qaddafi. The State party considers that it is not likely that the alleged risk of torture and the alleged threat of reprisals against the complainants still exist. There is no information to suggest that the complainants belong to a group that is particularly vulnerable, and the level and intensity of violence in Libya are not such that the general security situation itself suffices to establish that removal of the complainants would breach the State party’s obligations under article 3 of the Convention. 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 or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under 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. 7.2 The Committee also notes the State party’s confirmation, in its submission of 26 February 2010, that all domestic remedies have been exhausted pursuant to article 22, paragraph 5 (b). 7.3 The State party submits that the complaint is “manifestly ill-founded” and should not be examined on its merits. The Committee is of the opinion that the arguments before it 7