CAT/C/60/D/648/2015 The complaint 3. The complainant claims that his deportation to Sri Lanka would violate his rights under article 3 of the Convention. He states that, since he is a Tamil man from an area formerly known for LTTE activities, he is suspected of having links with LTTE; that he has already been tortured by the Criminal Investigation Department and the Karuna group in the past and accused in court of terrorist activities; and, having escaped from detention by a pro-Government militia, upon return to Sri Lanka he faces torture by the authorities, who are still looking for suspected anti-Government elements. Therefore, by returning him to Sri Lanka, Australia would violate its obligations under article 3 of the Convention. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 By note verbale dated 16 October 2015, the State party provided its observations on the admissibility and merits of the complainant’s communication. 4.2 The State party submits that the complainant’s claims are unsubstantiated and inadmissible pursuant to rule 113 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure, on the grounds that they are manifestly unfounded as he has failed to establish a prima facie case. The State party notes that the complainant’s claims were thoroughly considered by a series of domestic decision makers, including an independent merits review and a judicial review by both the Federal Circuit Court and the Full Federal Court of Australia. These domestic processes determined that the complainant’s claims were not credible and did not engage the State party’s obligations. The complainant’s claims were also considered under complementary protection provisions. 4.3 The State party asserts that the complainant has not provided any relevant new evidence in his submission to the Committee that has not already been considered through robust and comprehensive domestic administrative and judicial processes. It refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 in which it is stated that the Committee is not an appellate or judicial body and that it gives considerable weight to findings of fact made by organs of a State party. 4.4 Regarding the complainant’s reliance on general country information, the State party asserts that this does not, prima facie, establish a personal risk of torture. In concluding that there are no substantial grounds for believing that the complainant is at personal risk of torture in Sri Lanka, domestic decision makers have already considered extensive country information, including that provided by the State party’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). 4.5 The State party refers to the initial decision relating to the complainant’s refugee status. The refugee status assessment officer was not satisfied that the complainant was a reliable witness. In particular, he did not accept the complainant’s alleged encounter with a Sri Lankan police officer during his stay in Timor-Leste. The complainant did not mention this encounter during his entry interview or in his written refugee status assessment submissions. Further, given the availability of other Tamil interpreters, the officer did not consider it plausible that a Sri Lankan police officer would be required to act as an interpreter. Moreover, it was not considered plausible that the complainant would take the risk of criticizing the Sri Lankan Government in front of a police officer. The refugee status assessment officer did accept the complainant’s claims relating to his alleged detention by the Criminal Investigation Department in 2006 and his kidnapping in 2008. Nonetheless, the officer did not consider that these incidents gave rise to refugee protection obligations. 4.6 Regarding the first independent merits review, the State party explains that all claims for protection were considered afresh. The complainant was able to make written submissions and attend an interview with his migration agent and with the assistance of a Tamil interpreter. On 13 May 2011, after an assessment of all available evidence, the independent reviewer recommended that the complainant not be recognized as a person to whom the State party owed protection under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. 4.7 The State party adds that the reviewer had significant concerns about the complainant’s credibility. In relation to his detention by the Criminal Investigation 4