CAT/C/65/D/761/2016 reviewer had made a finding for which there was no evidence. In rejecting each of the arguments, the Court found that that complainant had not demonstrated that the review was procedurally unfair, nor that it had not been conducted in accordance with the correct legal principles. 6.9 An International Treaties Obligations Assessment was then conducted to reassess whether the complainant’s claims engaged the non-refoulement obligations of Australia, following the decision in the case of Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v. SZQRB. 8 The State party rejects the complainant’s characterization of that case in relation to the procedural fairness of the International Treaties Obligations Assessment process. The assessment conducted in the complainant’s case did not give rise to the same concerns identified in Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v. SZQRB. The State party notes that the complainant’s claim that the International Treaties Obligations Assessment process has now been abolished altogether is also not accurate. In his further submissions to the assessor, the complainant argued that he would be at risk after returning to his home area, due to his status as a failed asylum seeker, his illegal departure from Sri Lanka and his contact with the Australian Tamil Congress in Sydney. At this stage, he submitted a new claim that his wife and children had been photographed since his departure, and that he believed the Criminal Investigation Department was looking for him. The complainant also claimed that he had been tortured while held in the Chettikulam camp in 2009. When asked to clarify the torture he experienced, he said that he was questioned and threatened with beatings. The assessor concluded that the complainant did not face a real risk of persecution, nor a real risk of suffering significant harm upon his return to Sri Lanka for any of the reasons raised in his submissions. 6.10 A judicial review of the recommendations from the International Treaties Obligations Assessment was then conducted by the Federal Circuit Court, and it found that after considering the assessor’s report as a whole, no legal error had occurred and that there had been no failure on the part of the assessor to consider the information before her. The complainant’s application for injunctive relief was therefore dismissed. 6.11 Finally, a judicial review of the decision of the Federal Circuit Court was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, in which the Court looked into whether the assessor had asked incorrect questions or used an incorrect test when considering country information provided by the complainant in relation to persons with links to the Tamil Tigers. In considering these grounds of appeal, the Court undertook a further review of the complainant’s full claims history. The Court held that the complainant had failed to identify any specific error in the way in which the country information had been applied. The Court separately considered whether there was any error evident or whether the assessor had failed to consider any of the complainant’s claims, and found neither to be true. 6.12 The State party submits that the complainant also made two requests for ministerial intervention. Under this non-compellable power, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection9 can intervene in individual cases if he thinks it is in the public interest to do so. Both requests were denied. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s additional observations 7.1 On 18 September 2018, the complainant submitted his comments on the State party’s observations on the merits of the communication. He reiterates that at this point, he simply insists that he is at risk of prolonged detention in Sri Lanka, that prolonged 8 9 6 On 20 March 2013, the judgment in the case established that the International Treaties Obligations Assessment and the post-review protection check did not use the correct test to determine whether the State party’s non-refoulement obligations were engaged, and that procedural fairness requirements in relation to country information were not met. As such, all illegal maritime arrivals affected by the case had their protection status reassessed through an International Treaties Obligations Assessment, and the assessment process became judicially reviewable. A description of the current temporary protection system in Australia can be found at https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/what-we-do/refugeeand-humanitarian-program/onshore-protection. In 2013, the title of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship became the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection.