CAT/C/59/D/649/2015 4.6 The State party does acknowledge that complete accuracy can seldom be expected by victims of torture.13 Domestic decision makers have taken into account the need to make some allowance for flaws and inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony. For example, in assessing the complainant’s protection visa application, they have acknowledged the need to be sensitive to the difficulties often faced by asylum seekers. 4.7 The complainant’s claims in the communication have been considered during the following domestic processes: the protection visa application; the review of the independent merits by the Refugee Review Tribunal; the judicial reviews by the Federal Circuit Court and the Federal Court; and the request for ministerial intervention. 4.8 The complainant lodged an application for a protection visa on 19 May 2012, having completed an entry interview on 20 March 2012. He was granted a Bridging E (subclass 050) visa on 3 July 2012 while his protection visa application was under consideration by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. On 18 July 2012, the complainant’s protection visa application was refused. The decision maker in the case had conducted an interview with the complainant (with the assistance of an interpreter) and considered other relevant material such as country information provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Australia. The decision maker considered most of the claims made by the complainant in his submissions to the Committee. Specifically, the decision maker considered the complainant’s claims that he was made to reside in and serve at an LTTE camp between 2002 and 2006, that his parents’ house had been visited by Criminal Investigation Department officers and members of the Karuna group, that his cousin had been abducted and remained missing and that his situation had worsened by the fact that he had sought asylum. The decision maker was not satisfied that the complainant had provided a truthful and accurate account of his circumstances in Sri Lanka, noting inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence and discrepancies between that evidence and documentary records. The decision maker accepted that the complainant had spent some time in an LTTE camp between 2002 and 2006, but doubted the complainant’s account of the duration of his stay and the nature of his activities there. 4.9 The decision maker gave no weight to copies of letters provided by the complainant in support of his claims, noting discrepancies between the content of the letters and the complainant’s own account of events. The decision maker also took note of the significant incidence of document fraud in Sri Lanka and the fact that a number of people who had arrived on the same boat as the complainant had provided similar letters as part of their own applications. The decision maker concluded that the letters were written at the request of the complainant after he had arrived in Australia by persons with no personal knowledge of his circumstances. The decision maker also rejected the complainant’s claim that he was wanted by the Karuna group. The complainant was able to obtain a genuine Sri Lankan passport and had twice exited and re-entered the country through official channels, passing numerous checkpoints. The decision maker considered that this suggested that the complainant was not of interest to the Sri Lankan authorities or associated paramilitary groups. The decision maker did not consider that the complainant’s position in that respect had been changed by his subsequent illegal departure from Sri Lanka and application for protection. The decision maker accepted that it was possible that the complainant may be identified as a “failed asylum seeker” if returned to Sri Lanka, but considered it unlikely that the complainant would be subjected to anything more than a perfunctory screening upon return. The decision maker concluded that the complainant was not a refugee, as he did not have a well-founded fear of persecution. The decision maker went on to consider whether the complainant was owed protection obligations under the complementary protection provisions of the Migration Act 1958, which reflect Australia’s non-refoulement 13 See also communication No. 21/1995, Alan v. Switzerland, Views adopted on 8 May 1996, para. 11.3. 5