CAT/C/57/D/605/2014 that the complainant had travelled to Kilinochchi and this had led to a suspicion that the complainant had connections with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, it would have had the power to detain him at that time. However, the complainant was let go. The Department of Immigration and Border Protection has assessed the fact that the complainant was released as indicating that he was not a person of interest. In regard to the complainant’s attempt to view the deceased body, the State party claims that there is no reasonable explanation for the author not to have disclosed pertinent information to the Refugee Review Tribunal such as the fact that he and Mr. K.’s wife had opened the coffin and found the body mutilated or not to have disclosed in the submission the fact that there was a video that put the author at risk of harm. 21 Consequently, the State party has not accepted these claims as a true account of events and has therefore not taken them as evidence that the complainant would be subjected to torture if returned to Sri Lanka. 7.8 Furthermore, the State party points out that the complainant claimed that after being detained and interrogated in 2008, no other adverse incidents occurred until 2011, three years after Mr. K.’s death. When asked at his protection visa interview if anything else had happened to him after he was detained in 2008, the author responded that in 2011 some people had come to his parents’ place (his previous residence)22 and asked where he was. However, this claim has been inconsistent throughout the assessment process. It was accepted by both the protection visa decision maker and the Refugee Review Tribunal that the author continued to live and work in the same place (or close by) from 2006 until he departed for Australia in June 2012. In addition, he provided information to the Tribunal saying that he had continued working until his departure in 2012. Consequently, his claims that people have been looking for him since 2008 are not considered to be evidence of a real and current risk of torture if returned to Sri Lanka. Although he submits that Mr. K.’s death is “highly suspicious”, the author has not articulated how the suspicious circumstances surrounding Mr. K.’s death would engage the State party’s non-refoulement obligations under article 3 of the Convention against Torture. 7.9. The State party does not consider the complainant’s reference to WZAPN v. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, and the High Court appeal, to be relevant to the State party’s obligations towards the author under the Convention, as that case relates to the interpretation of provisions of domestic legislation directed at implementing the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, as amended by the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees. Consequently, the State party submits that these claims are inadmissible ratione materiae. 7.10 The State party notes that all domestic remedies have been exhausted, as High Court proceedings were dismissed on 29 October 2015. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claims contained in a complaint, 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. 21 22 GE.16-09596 The complainant did not tell the Tribunal that when he and some family members went to visit the coffin, they opened it and found the body mutilated. Instead, he told the Tribunal that he was at risk because a video had been taken of him when he went to visit the body of the deceased at the hospital. No exact date was provided in respect of this incident. 11