CCPR/C/106/D/1912/2009 issued a request for interim measures demanding that the State party withhold his deportation. 5.6 With regard to the State party’s contention that the author failed to substantiate a risk under article 6, paragraph 1, and article 7 of the Covenant, the author replies that the PRRA officer recognized the risks faced by ethnic Tamils from the North and East of Sri Lanka, but failed to properly apply the law to those accepted facts. The evidence submitted by the author clearly discloses a risk of death and torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Indeed, it was on the basis of that evidence that the Committee issued a request for interim measures of protection. 5.7 The State party takes the position that the author’s account is not credible and not supported by objective evidence. However, not only do the author’s submissions demonstrate that the real risk of violations of articles 6, paragraph 1, 7 and 9 of the Covenant do not in any way depend on those allegations that the State party has deemed non-credible, but the claim that the risks are not supported by objective evidence is not founded. There is voluminous documentary evidence demonstrating the risks faced by someone with the author’s profile. Furthermore, while the State party takes the position that the author has an internal flight alternative in Colombo, where it says that he can reside provided that he registers with the police, the 2009 United States Department of State country report on human rights practice in Sri Lanka published on 11 March 2010 states that Colombo police refused to register Tamils from the north and east, as required by Emergency Regulation 23, sometimes forcing them to return to their homes in areas affected by the conflict. Therefore Colombo is not safe for the author. The State party mentions that Tamils from the west might be questioned at checkpoints. This is precisely the situation of the author. Moreover, questioning by the Sri Lankan authorities frequently involves violations of article 7 of the Covenant. The author’s communication in this regard is therefore sufficiently substantiated. 5.8 With regard to the State party’s contention in relation to article 9 of the Covenant, while the author does not take issue with the State party’s position that detention per se or even arbitrary detention per se, may not constitute irreparable harm, in the present case, the author’s submissions make clear that the risk of arbitrary detention of the author in Sri Lanka brings with it the risk of torture or cruel and unusual punishment while in detention. Thus the risk of a violation of article 9, paragraph 1, cannot be dissociated from the real risk of a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 5.9 The author considers that as such, whatever the merits or demerits of the system may be, the fact remains that the system failed to protect the author’s most fundamental rights and it now falls to the Committee to make this assessment. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its Rules of Procedure, decide whether or not the case is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the author has not exhausted domestic remedies because he has submitted two new pieces of evidence to the Committee that were not previously examined by domestic authorities; and that he failed to apply for judicial review of the first H&C application which had been rejected on 14 September 12