CAT/C/59/D/649/2015 complainant’s father in 2009 by the Karuna group were also rejected by the Refugee Review Tribunal. The complainant’s claims that his father has been harassed and tortured are premised on an underlying claim that that the complainant is of interest to the Karuna group and the Sri Lankan authorities. The Refugee Review Tribunal rejected that premise in 2012. The Department did not consider that the complainant had provided any evidence to indicate that he had since become a person of interest to the Sri Lankan authorities or to paramilitary groups. The Department therefore considered that the complainant’s claims that his father had been harassed in 2014 and 2015 by men seeking to kill the complainant were not credible. The Department also noted that the complainant claimed that his father had been harassed in March, June and October 2014, but that the complainant failed to include those claims in the request for ministerial intervention that he submitted in November 2014. The Department considered it incongruent that the complainant had made those claims only when he had exhausted all domestic remedies. Given the circumstances, the Department considered that the claims regarding threats allegedly made to the complainant’s father in 2014 and 2015 were not credible and were made with the sole purpose of bolstering the complainant’s case. 4.21 The State party finally notes that the complainant has claimed being afraid of being tortured and killed if returned to Sri Lanka because his asylum application has been denied. It also notes that the complainant has provided documentation regarding alleged human rights violations committed in the region of Sri Lanka where he is from. The State party maintains that the complainant has not established the existence of additional grounds to show that he is at a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture if returned to Sri Lanka. Furthermore, the issues raised by the complainant relating to the human rights violations in, and the return of asylum seekers to, Sri Lanka have been specifically and carefully considered by all domestic processes. Material that was before the decision makers and considered as part of the assessment of the complainant’s protection visa application, as well as the appeals of the subsequent adverse decisions to the Refugee Review Tribunal, the Federal Circuit Court and the Federal Court, included information on the country provided by UNHCR, by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Australia, by the Border Agency, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the State Department of the United States of America, by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, by the Danish Immigration Service, by the International Organization for Migration, by the International Crisis Group, by the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, by Child Soldiers International, by Amnesty International, by the Asian Human Rights Commission, by Human Rights Watch, by Freedom House and by various media outlets. That was the information considered by the primary decision maker and the Refugee Review Tribunal. There has been no relevant change in the country information indicating a worsening of the situation since those decisions were made. 4.22 On 31 March 2016, the State party recalled its submission dated 12 October 2015 and asked the Committee to lift its request for interim measures. If the Committee decides, after having given the matter due consideration, that the request should not be withdrawn, then the State party respectfully requests that the communication be fast-tracked for consideration by the Committee on the basis that it was not complex, the documentation was complete and all domestic processes had been finalized. Absence of comments by the complainant 5. The State party’s observations were transmitted to the complainant for comments on 14 October 2015, with a request to provide comments by 14 December 2015. Since he failed to do so, reminders were sent on 15 December 2015, 7 March 2016 and 13 July 2016. The State party’s submission of 31 March 2016 was also transmitted on 28 April 2016, with 9