CAT/C/56/D/591/2014 previously assessed. The Department was satisfied that there continued to be no substantial grounds for believing there is a real risk of harm for the complainant. 6.4 The State party further notes that the complainant states that, as a failed asylum seeker, he fears being tortured and killed upon return to Sri Lanka. The State party reiterates that extensive country information on Sri Lanka and the return of failed asylum seekers specifically had also been carefully considered at the domestic level. For example, during the review of the protection visa application, the authorities considered country information provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and nongovernmental organizations, as well as guidance in the UNHCR Handbook. Furthermore, the Refugee Review Tribunal had also considered a wide range of country information pertaining to Sri Lanka, including information specifically relating to failed asylum seekers. Finally, in the assessments of the complainant’s requests for ministerial intervention, country information provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade was considered, and it was verified that, while failed asylum seekers are detained upon return to Sri Lanka under the laws relating to leaving the country illegally, all such detainees are granted bail if a family member stands as guarantor. It was noted that the complainant has family members who could assist him and it was considered that there was no information indicating that he would not be granted bail or that he would be discriminated against or tortured because he is a failed asylum seeker and/or Tamil. Complainant’s additional comments 7.1 On 6 August 2015, the complainant reiterates that his life would be in danger if returned to Sri Lanka. He states that he has become “mentally up-set”, suffers from “stress and trauma”, has tried to commit suicide and had to be treated for one week in a mental hospital because of this. He further submits that, on 21 May 2015, he was detained in the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre and, on 20 July 2015, he was transferred to the Christmas Island Centre. Additional submissions by the parties 8.1 On 9 September 2015, the State party submits that the Department of Immigration and Border Protection had already assessed the information included in the complainant’s additional submission of August 2015 and a police report dated 17 September 2010 in the assessment of his request for ministerial intervention in July 2015. However, the departmental authorities did not accept the police report as genuine and formed the view that it was not credible that the complainant did not provide the document at an earlier stage while his protection claims were being assessed or reviewed. In that regard, the State party maintains that the complainant has not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate his claims that he has a profile as a Tamil man and as an LTTE sympathizer or supporter that would attract the attention of the Sri Lankan authorities upon return to Sri Lanka, as to engage the State party’s non-refoulement obligations under article 3 of the Convention. 8.2 On 16 October 2015, the complainant explains that he did not submit the police report of 17 September 2010 earlier as he did not want the State party’s authorities to think that he was involved with the LTTE, as he had only “helped” some of its members when they came to Colombo. He has never taken up arms or been involved in their militant activities. He highlights that the report is genuine and that it was issued by the Negombo police on the day of his arrest. The complainant also reiterates that his father was killed because he refused to disclose his whereabouts. 8.3 On 8 November 2015, the complainant submits that, inter alia, upon arrival in Australia, he was advised “not to talk about any LTTE connections” as the authorities would detain him indefinitely in detention centres. He further states that he did not have 11