CAT/C/65/D/761/2016 bail was being arranged, he would be in danger of being interrogated under torture. He argues that he would face prolonged detention because he had already suffered harassment and threats from the Criminal Investigation Department while in the Chettikulam camp due to his and his brother’s prior activities and ties with the Tamil Tigers. The complainant submits that while he was in the camp, the harassment continued to escalate, and his escape from the camp and the subsequent probable murder of his father-in-law means that the army would have serious suspicions about him. Therefore, if he were to return, he would be in danger of prolonged detention. 5.3 The complainant further submits that he had reasonable grounds to suspect that the Sri Lanka Army is responsible for his father-in-law’s death. His family tried to complain and challenge the official cause of death, however they were silenced by the army. The marks on his father-in-law’s neck, which are visible on the photograph taken after his death, could not have been caused by a suicide attempt. The complainant submits that since his credibility has not been questioned by the Australian authorities, due weight should be given to his statement, especially since other types of evidence to support this assertion are extremely difficult to produce, given the situation in the north of Sri Lanka in 2009. Therefore, his claims should be considered reasonable, and not manifestly unfounded as suggested in the State party’s submission. 5.4 With regard to the State party’s argument that the complainant has gone through robust domestic processes to evaluate his claims, the complainant notes that the refugee status assessment and the independent merits review are not statutory processes. He submits that because he arrived in Australia by boat in 2010, he was not afforded the same rights to a statutory process to assess his claims for protection as those who arrived by aeroplane. The process was advisory in nature and the decision remained within the discretion of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. There were very few guarantees offered of the real independence of the reviewers since they were appointed and paid by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, and their independence was not structurally sound. The complainant further submits that the Federal Magistrates Court only had jurisdiction for the procedural legality of the process and could not find against errors of judgment made by the independent merits review. Only in March 2014, after the case of Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v. SZQRB at the High Court of Australia, did the so-called complementary protection measure become law in Australia, and the distinction between arrivals by aeroplane and arrivals by boat was abolished. This meant that persons who arrived by boat, such as the complainant, were now afforded a statutory process in which a delegate of the Minister made an assessment and decided whether or not to approve their protection claim, rather than merely offering advice to the Minister. This decision can now be reviewed by the Refugee Review Tribunal, 4 a statutory body with greater independence than the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. The complainant submits that after the changes in the law, he was offered a “revamped” International Treaties Obligations Assessment, which by then was virtually an empty process. Later, the International Treaties Obligations Assessment was abolished by the State party altogether, and people who were affected were offered the chance to make a fresh protection visa application. The complainant submits that his claims have not been properly assessed, and that the processes he was subjected to were far from “robust” as claimed by the State party. State party’s additional observations on the merits 6.1 By a note verbale dated 15 June 2017, the State party submitted its observations on the merits. The State party reiterates that the complainant’s claims are inadmissible ratione materiae and manifestly unfounded. It notes that a transparent and reasoned consideration of the admissibility of a complainant’s claims is a key procedural element of the individual complaints process and essential to the success of the complaints framework. It further notes that in certain recent views adopted by the Committee, in response to detailed submissions by the State party that the complainants’ claims were inadmissible ratione materiae or manifestly unfounded, the Committee had observed that the issues raised with regard to admissibility were closely related to the merits. The State party notes that it is 4 4 In July 2015, the Refugee Review Tribunal became the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.