CAT/C/58/D/599/2014 Review Tribunal stipulated that the complainant would likely face arrest on charges of leaving the country illegally and that he could be placed in remand for a brief period while awaiting a bail hearing and may later be fined. However, the Tribunal concluded that there were no substantial grounds for believing that there was a real risk of the complainant being subjected to torture if removed to Sri Lanka. 4.11 The State party also notes that, on 22 November 2013, the Federal Circuit Court dismissed the complainant’s application for judicial review of the Refugee Review Tribunal’s decision. The complainant was present at the Circuit Court hearing and made submissions. In particular, the Circuit Court concluded that the complainant was unable to point to any legal error by the Tribunal and the court could not find anything illogical or irrational in its analysis. 4.12 On 11 December 2013, the complainant filed a request for ministerial intervention under sections 48B and 417 of the Migration Act. The claims made by the complainant were again assessed in full with consideration also given to the decisions of the Refugee Review Tribunal and the Federal Circuit Court. However, the complainant’s request for ministerial intervention was rejected as he did not provide any further information to justify such intervention. In this regard, the decision maker noted that the Tribunal was not satisfied with the complainant’s claims that he would be harmed upon return to Sri Lanka because he was part of the particular social group of failed asylum seekers. The decision maker also noted that, while the Tribunal accepted that the complainant was likely to face arrest because he left the country illegally and that he might be placed in remand and fined, it was not satisfied that this treatment could reasonably be said to amount to serious or significant harm under section 36 (2) (aa) of the Migration Act. 4.13 In the light of the above, the State party maintains that all of the complainant’s claims were considered and all the evidence provided was verified by the domestic authorities at every stage of the process. All of the processes concluded that there were no substantial grounds for believing that the complainant was at a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture if returned to Sri Lanka. 4.14 Regarding the complainant’s alleged activities in Australia, the State party notes that the complainant did not provide evidence to substantiate his new claims regarding his activities with the Tamil Congress in Australia. The complainant submitted that while he was in immigration detention, he had been approached by members of the Tamil Congress who were willing to provide assistance regarding his protection visa application. The complainant claims that, if he were forcibly returned to Sri Lanka, the fact that he had been in contact with the Tamil Congress would result in his being arbitrarily detained and interrogated on the regrouping of LTTE abroad. In this regard, the State party submits that the complainant did not explain how or why that would put him at risk of torture. The State party also submits that the complainant’s Tamil ethnicity and alleged links with LTTE were thoroughly assessed and both the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and the Refugee Review Tribunal found that the complainant did not have any form of connection with LTTE nor was he suspected of such links or a criminal suspect. 4.15 Finally, with regard to the complainant’s claim that, because he is a failed asylum seeker, he would be subjected to torture and killed if returned to Sri Lanka, the State party notes that the complainant has not provided any information in support of that claim. The State party acknowledges that article 3 (2) of the Convention requires that all relevant considerations be taken into account when determining whether article 3 (1) is engaged, including the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the State party notes that the existence of a general risk of violation does not constitute sufficient grounds for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to a country. Additional grounds must exist to show that the individual concerned would be personally at 6