CAT/C/58/D/599/2014 face persecution or significant harm if returned to Colombo, and that there was no indication that any harm would escalate to a level that would constitute persecution or significant harm in the future. In addition, the authorities inferred that there was not a real chance of the complainant facing persecution for suspected links to LTTE as he had not experienced any harassment between 2007 and 2012 and he left Colombo because of illness, not out of fear. Moreover, the authorities concluded that the complainant’s fear of being persecuted by the United People’s Freedom Alliance or by government forces because he refused to attend a rally protesting the United Nation’s findings on Sri Lanka was not well-founded as there were no further threats to him or visits to his house since that time; he did not have an United People’s Freedom Alliance profile and was not obliged to live in Batticaloa; and it is unlikely that the United People’s Freedom Alliance would have recorded his name and shared it with the authorities in Colombo that would enable them to locate the complainant on his return. The domestic authorities also concluded that the complainant did not fear any kind of harm in Colombo, but merely wanted to avoid employment difficulties, and that his fear of being persecuted by the Sri Lankan authorities because he would be a returned Tamil asylum seeker was not well-founded as he did not have a criminal record nor was he suspected of LTTE involvement by the security forces. Therefore, given that there were no substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture, the Australian authorities rejected his protection visa application. 4.9 The complainant subsequently filed an application for an independent merits review with the Refugee Review Tribunal — an external review body that provides a full and independent merits review of decisions concerning protection visas. On 1 May 2013, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection not to grant the complainant a protection visa. In this regard, the State party notes that the complainant was physically present at the Tribunal hearing and was represented by a registered migration officer. He was able to make oral submissions with the assistance of an interpreter. 4.10 The Refugee Review Tribunal accepted that the complainant had been abducted, beaten and released the same day and that this had occurred due to mistaken identity; the mistake of identity had been quickly rectified; the complainant’s brother had been abducted; there had been some degree of security checking at the complainant’s workplace by soldiers of the Sri Lanka Army; and tighter procedures had recently been adopted for those returning to Sri Lanka in breach of immigration laws. However, the Refugee Review Tribunal did not accept the following as credible: that the abduction of the complainant’s brother in and of itself had led the authorities to identify the complainant as being an LTTE supporter; that the complainant had been imputed with a pro-LTTE political opinion owing to his brother’s involvement with LTTE; that five unidentified men came to his home to demand that he attend a rally protesting the United Nations findings on Sri Lanka and that when he refused, he was slapped and told to be careful; that the alleged intruders subsequently returned to his house after he had left the country; that the admonition to be careful and the incident relating to his refusal to attend the rally protesting the United Nations findings on Sri Lanka had caused him to go into hiding for some time and precipitated his decision to leave Sri Lanka; that he would be harmed on his return to Sri Lanka because of the pro-LTTE political opinion with which he is supposedly imputed; that the security checks at the complainant’s workplace in Colombo were carried out with the frequency or degree of harassment claimed; that he was under suspicion for LTTE involvement; that he had encountered any particular or unusual difficulties registering with the local police; that the complainant had suffered serious or significant harm because of his Tamil ethnicity; that he would suffer harm or persecution on return to Sri Lanka because he was part of the particular social group of failed asylum seekers; and that his being charged, fined or held on remand on his return would amount to serious harm. The Refugee 5