CAT/C/68/D/855/2017 shifting political alliances. He asserts that the Australian authorities found him not to be credible because he was not educated in the currency of advanced Western democratic processes. 5.5 As to his confidentiality concern, the complainant submits that at the Refugee Review Tribunal’s hearing, he was allowed to speak to his representative only at the end of a demanding, three-hour interview, and he was significantly stressed. Thus, it is not surprising that the confidentiality issue was lost in the moment. 5.6 The complainant reiterates his claim that his personal risk is tied to his relationship and collaboration with his uncle Bandu. He submits that now that Bandu is dead, it may be erroneously deduced that the threat against him has also ceased. Referring to the findings by the Australian authorities that Bandu had protected him, the complainant claims to face a risk of greater harm, as he no longer has Bandu’s protection. Additional information from the complainant 6. On 4 May 2019, the complainant submitted the death certificate of his uncle, which indicates that poisoning cannot be ruled out as a possible cause of death. State party’s additional observations 7.1 On 23 August 2019, the State party submitted its observations on the complainant’s comments and additional information. The State party asserts that the source of the translation of the newspaper article presented by the complainant is not clear, and the translation has not been certified. In addition, the witness statement has not been taken under oath or affirmation. In the view of the State party, these issues undermine the credibility and reliability of the documents. Even if the statement were credible and reliable, given that the statement acknowledges that an “unknown group” had carried out the alleged vandalism, it cannot be concluded that the act had any link to the complainant’s political affiliation. Furthermore, the matter still appears to be under investigation. As a result, the State party considers that this additional information does not alter its original findings. 7.2 The State party further notes that the death certificate lists the deceased as Chandrapala Ranawaka while the complainant’s uncle has been referred to as Bandu Ranawaka throughout the domestic proceedings. The different name on the death certificate, of which the name Bandu does not appear to be a variation or nickname, undermines the credibility of the complainant’s claims. While the certificate indicates that poisoning could not be ruled out and that the case needed to be forwarded for further investigation, the complainant has not provided any evidence regarding further investigation. The State party considers that his claim to face a risk of greater harm as a result of his uncle’s death is misplaced. It logically follows that, if his risk was based on his relationship with his uncle, that risk is exceptionally circumscribed in the light of his uncle’s death. 7.3 Regarding the complainant’s claims about political instability of Sri Lanka, the State party submits that up-to-date country information has been considered throughout the domestic processes, and country information dated 23 May 2018, prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Australia, indicates that there is low risk of mistreatment that can amount to torture in Sri Lanka. The State party also provides information as to the procedural steps to be taken for those who return to Sri Lanka. 7.4 The State party takes note of the protection claims raised in the complainant’s submission dated 31 March 2019, and maintains that these claims have already been assessed and rejected during the extensive domestic processes. The State party also points out the inconsistencies and lack of credibility of his claims, which have been addressed by various domestic decisions and review mechanisms. 7.5 As regards the complainant’s claim that the point about confidentiality was lost in the moment owing to the nature of the proceeding at the Refugee Review Tribunal, the State party reiterates its position that he was given ample opportunity to raise any concerns regarding confidentiality. 6