CAT/C/59/D/649/2015 country does not as such constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his or her return to that country; specific grounds must exist that indicate that the individual concerned would be personally at risk.7 Therefore, additional grounds must be adduced by the complainant to show that he would be personally at risk. 8 The onus of proving that there is a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture upon extradition or deportation rests on the complainant and the risk must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory and suspicion.9 4.3 The State party reiterates that the complainant’s claims are inadmissible pursuant to rule 113 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure on the ground that they are manifestly unfounded. Under rule 113 (b), it is the responsibility of the complainant to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of establishing the admissibility of the complaint. 10 The Government of Australia respectfully submits that the complainant has failed to do so. If the Committee considers the complainant’s claims to be admissible, the Government submits that they are also without merit. 4.4 The State party submits also that the complainant’s claims have been thoroughly considered by a series of domestic decision makers, including the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (during the determination of the complainant’s protection visa application) and the Refugee Review Tribunal. The decision of the Tribunal was subject to judicial review by the Federal Circuit Court and the Federal Court. The complainant’s claims were also assessed during the ministerial intervention process. 11 Robust domestic processes have considered the complainant’s claims and determined that they were not credible and did not engage the Government’s non-refoulement obligations. In particular, the complainant’s claims have been assessed under the complementary protection provisions contained in section 36 (2) (aa) of the Migration Act 1958, which reflects the Government’s non-refoulement obligations under the Convention and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 4.5 The State party maintains that the evidence that the complainant has provided in his submissions has been considered through its comprehensive domestic administrative and judicial processes. It refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3, stating that, as the Committee is not an appellate or judicial body, it gives considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by organs of a State party.12 The State party requests that the Committee accept that it has thoroughly assessed the complainant’s claims through its domestic processes and found that it does not owe the complainant protection obligations under the Convention. The State party takes its obligations under the Convention seriously and has implemented them in good faith through its domestic migration processes. 7 8 9 10 11 12 4 See communication No. 83/1997, G.R.B. v. Sweden, para 6.3. See communication No. 177/2001, H.M.H.I. v. Australia, decision adopted on 1 May 2002, para. 6.5. See communication No. 203/2002, A.R. v. Netherlands, decision adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 7.3. Committee against Torture, general comment No. 1, para. 4. Section 48B of the Migration Act 1958 provides the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection with the power to allow applicants in Australia to lodge a fresh protection visa application if the Minister thinks it is in the public interest to do so, where they have had a previous protection visa application refused or a previous protection visa cancelled while in Australia. Section 417 of the Migration Act 1958 provides the Minister with the power to substitute a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal with a more favourable decision if the Minister thinks it is in the public interest to do so. Committee against Torture, general comment No. 1, para. 9 (a).