CAT/C/58/D/599/2014 jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal. The complainant submits that this process was in no way a robust and thorough review of the Tribunal’s decision as not all of the evidence was before the court, such as the transcript of the Tribunal hearing. 5.4 The complainant submits that the ministerial intervention process under section 417 of the Migration Act lacked transparency. He also submits that he was not interviewed and that the refusal letter did not indicate why his case did not meet the ministerial requirements. He further submits that the Government did not provide any evidence of this process to the Committee. 5.5 The complainant also attached a report from the Edmund Rice Centre, which contains details of the State party’s role in providing the Sri Lankan authorities with instruments of torture and technology for surveillance and monitoring. In this regard, he submits that this information undermines the veracity of any assessment of or decision on the real risk of serious or significant harm upon one’s return to Sri Lanka. The complainant submits that his contact with Tamil Congress members in Australia would be known in Sri Lanka and the Sri Lankan authorities would question and interrogate him upon his return about the Tamil Congress and its activities. 5.6 On 5 November 2015, counsel for the complainant submitted the transcripts of the High Court of Australia that dismissed the complainant’s application and noted that the complainant had exhausted all domestic remedies to obtain protection in Australia. State party’s additional observations 6.1 On 23 December 2015, the State party referred to, inter alia, the complainant’s submissions dated 4 February 2015 and 16 August 2015. 6.2 The State party noted that the reference to WZAPN v. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 947 was misinterpreted. In that case, on 17 June 2015, the High Court considered that the question of whether the risk of loss of liberty constituted “serious harm” for the purpose of section 91R of the Migration Act, which requires a qualitative evaluation of the nature and gravity of the apprehended loss of liberty. The decisions of both the Federal Court and the High Court related to the interpretation of the provisions of Australian legislation insofar as they concerned the implementation of the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees and are not relevant to the Convention obligations of the Australian Government with regard to the complainant. The State party submits that these claims are inadmissible, ratione materiae, under rule 113 (c) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. 6.3 Regarding the complainant’s claim that his status is far wider that the particular social group of failed asylum seekers as he is a failed asylum seeker, suspected of LTTE connections and whose departure was illegal, the State party submits that the Federal Circuit Court found that there was no legal error in the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal. The Circuit Court found that it was reasonably open to the Tribunal to make its decision on what was before it. The Tribunal gave cogent reasons for not believing the applicant’s evidence. The Department of Immigration and Border Protection also assessed the complainant’s claim that he was a failed asylum seeker with LTTE connections and had left the country illegally. In the light of current country information, the Department considered, like the previous assessments, that the complainant did not have LTTE connections and therefore would not be at risk of significant harm by the Sri Lankan authorities on that basis, nor as a failed asylum seeker. 6.4 The State party submits that the Department of Immigration and Border Protection had also assessed the claims that the complainant would be questioned and interrogated upon return to Sri Lanka owing to his association with the Tamil Congress in Australia. However, the State Party notes that the complainant did not explained how or why his 9