CAT/C/71/D/884/2018 plane and sent to a local detention centre. However, his suitcase – whose contents included photographs of himself and his friend in Tamil Tigers uniform, court papers for his asylum application, a copy of his arrest warrant, letters from his family, his Sri Lankan driver’s licence and a flash drive containing revolutionary songs from the Tamil Tigers – was not taken off the plane in Perth with the complainant, and ended up being sent to the Bandaranaike International Airport in Sri Lanka. The complainant notes that he had been planning to destroy most of the items that had ended up being packed in his suitcase before his deportation, but the sudden nature of his removal meant that he was rushed and did not have an opportunity to carry out his plan. 2.10 According to the complainant, shortly after his suitcase was sent to Sri Lanka, several agents from the Criminal Investigation Department came to his parents’ house looking for him. They said that they suspected that the complainant had also arrived in Sri Lanka, but had managed to escape from the airport without passing through border control. They warned the complainant’s mother that they would return and would be looking for him. On 27 October 2018, the agents returned, again looking for the complainant. They knew that the complainant had been removed from the plane in Australia at the last minute, and questioned his mother as to the reasons for his removal. They also told her that they knew that the complainant had been part of the Tamil Tigers. Complaint 3. The complainant claims that his deportation to Sri Lanka would constitute a violation of his rights under article 3 of the Convention. He claims that there are substantial grounds to believe that he would suffer torture at the hands of the Criminal Investigation Department because of his suspected connections with the Tamil Tigers and the outstanding warrant for his arrest. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 29 July 2019, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits of the complaint. The State party submits that the complainant’s claims are inadmissible pursuant to article 22 (2) of the Convention and rule 113 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure, on the grounds that the claims are manifestly unfounded. According to the State party, the claims have been thoroughly considered by a series of domestic decision makers, including the Department of Home Affairs during the determination of the complainant’s application for a protection visa and the Refugee Review Tribunal during its independent merits review. The complainant also sought judicial review by the Federal Circuit Court and the High Court of Australia. Lastly, he requested ministerial intervention, which was also refused. 4.2 The State party refers to the Committee’s decisions in I.P.W.F. v. Australia and T.T.P. v. Australia,1 and notes that the Committee’s approach in these cases reinforces its longstanding position that a communication must meet the basic requirements of admissibility. The State party refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 4 (2017), in which the Committee notes that it gives considerable weight to findings of fact made by organs of the State party concerned. The State party asserts that it has thoroughly assessed the complainant’s claims through domestic processes, and has found that the claims do not engage its obligations under article 3 of the Convention. 4.3 The State party submits that during the interview with the complainant as part of the protection visa application process, the delegate of the Minister found that some of the complainant’s claims lacked credibility. In particular, the delegate of the Minister did not accept the complainant’s claims that he was politically active in Sri Lanka, that he was of any adverse interest to the authorities, and that he held any kind of elevated profile locally or nationally for any reason. The delegate of the Minister also observed that the complainant had been able to depart for India and return to Sri Lanka legally in June 2010, which indicated that he had been of no interest to authorities at that time. The delegate of the Minister also determined that the complainant did not face a real chance of serious harm amounting to 1 CAT/C/63/D/618/2014, para. 8.7, and CAT/C/65/D/756/2016, para. 6.3. 3