CAT/C/57/D/605/2014 their perceived links to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. The complainant has personally been questioned by “white van” people.6 3.3 The complainant claims that as he left Sri Lanka unlawfully, if he is forcibly returned he risks: (a) being detained at the Negombo Remand Unit for contravening section 45 (1) (b) of the country’s Immigrants and Emigrants Act; and (b) being charged with illegal departure and facing a long period of imprisonment. He also claims that conditions in the Negombo Remand Unit are well documented as being “cramped, unsanitary and unhygienic”, that there is little chance to exercise and that there is overcrowding to the extent that the prisoners have to take turns to sleep. Regardless of the length of time spent on remand, his detention would constitute inhuman and degrading treatment. 3.4 The complainant submits that returned failed asylum seekers who illegally departed Sri Lanka are immediately detected and taken into custody by the Sri Lankan authorities upon arrival at Colombo Airport. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 9 December 2014, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the complaint. It asserts that the complainant’s allegations are manifestly unfounded and therefore inadmissible as the complainant failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility. Should the Committee find that any of the allegations are admissible, the State party submits that these should be dismissed by the Committee for lack of merits. The State party argues that the complainant’s allegations have not been supported by evidence that there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being tortured if returned to Sri Lanka. The State party adds that the nonrefoulement obligation is confined to torture and does not extend to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.7 4.2 In order to show that a State party would be in breach of its non-refoulement obligation under article 3 of the Convention, an individual must be found to be at a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture should he or she be returned. 8 The State party submits that the complainant’s claim concerning inhumane treatment on returning to Sri Lanka, at the Negombo Remand Unit, should be ruled inadmissible pursuant to article 22 (2) of the Convention as incompatible with the provisions of the Convention. 4.3 In the State party’s view, the complainant has not provided any relevant new evidence in his submissions to the Committee that has not already been considered through robust and comprehensive domestic administrative and judicial processes which did not consider his claims to be credible. The State party requested the Committee to “give considerable weight to findings of fact” that were made by organs of a State party, which found that the State party did not owe the complainant protection under the Convention. 4.4 The State party submits that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility. It indicates that the complainant’s claims have been considered during the application for a protection visa, the external merits review by the Refugee Review Tribunal, the judicial review by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia and 6 7 8 4 “White van” people is a term generally used to refer to members of the Criminal Investigation Department or to its aids or affiliates. See the Committee’s general comment No. 1 on implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, para. 3. See communication No. 203/2002, A.R. v. Netherlands, decision adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 7.3. GE.16-09596