CAT/C/60/D/681/2015 and significant physical and mental abuse he underwent during his detention by the Taliban, the complainant suffers from mental consequences including post-traumatic stress disorder (see paras. 4.8, 4.11 and 6.4 below). 3.3 The complainant adds that he fears harassment, persecution and torture also by the Afghan authorities, for his status as a failed asylum seeker who has resided since 2010 in a western country. In that regard, the complainant argues that returning Afghans have nothing to return to: there are no schools, no access to medical aid and no water in Afghanistan. The complainant does not have any close family connections left in Afghanistan. 12 He fears that without the crucial support of his family and relatives, he may be at greater risk of being detected and persecuted by the Taliban or other parties. State party’s observations on the admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 10 December 2015, the State party submitted observations on the admissibility and merits of the complaint. 4.2 The State party submits that the complainant’s allegations are inadmissible because his claims are manifestly unfounded. It holds that it is the responsibility of the complainant to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of his complaint, which he has failed to do. Should the Committee find that the allegations are admissible, the State party submits that the claims are without merit as they have not been supported by evidence demonstrating that the complainant would face a “foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture”.13 4.3 The State party asserts that the complainant’s claims have been thoroughly considered through a series of domestic processes, including by way of a refugee status assessment, an independent merits review and the Federal Circuit Court14 and have been subject to judicial review by the Federal Circuit Court and the Federal Court of Australia. Robust domestic processes have considered and determined that the complainant’s claims were not credible and did not engage the State party’s non-refoulement obligations. In particular, the complainant’s claims have been assessed under the complementary protection provisions contained in section 36 (2) (aa) of the Migration Act 1958, which reflect non-refoulement obligations, as enshrined in article 3 of the Convention. 4.4 It further claims that the complainant has not provided any new and credible claims to the Committee that have not already been considered through robust and comprehensive domestic administrative and judicial processes. The State party refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence to the effect that, as it is not an appellate or judicial body, it gives considerable weight to findings to fact that are made by organs of a State party. 15 It requests the Committee to accept that the complainant’s claims have been thoroughly assessed through its domestic proceedings, following which it concluded that it does not owe the author protection obligations under the Convention. The State party asserts that it takes its obligations under the Convention seriously and has implemented them in good faith through its domestic migration procedures. 4.5 The State party also submits that it has reviewed the material provided by the author and that this material does not provide additional grounds to show that the author is at a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture if returned to Afghanistan. The issues raised by the author relating to the human rights violations and risk of torture he would face in case of return to Afghanistan as a failed asylum seeker have been specifically and carefully considered by all domestic authorities. They concluded that there were no substantial 12 13 14 15 4 Two of the complainant’s siblings reside in Pakistan. The State party submits that the obligation of non-refoulement under article 3 of the Convention is confined to torture and does not extend to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, referring to the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3, para. 1. The Federal Circuit Court quashed the recommendation of the first independent merits review by consent. See Committee against Torture, general comment No. 1, para. 9 (a).