CAT/C/60/D/681/2015 5.2 The State party recalls the comprehensive domestic processes, including merits review by the Refugee Review Tribunal, judicial review by the Federal Circuit Court and Federal Court of Australia, and a request to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to discretionarily intervene in favour of an unsuccessful visa application. It reiterates that the domestic processes consistently determined that the complainant was not entitled to protection under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees or to subsidiary protection, and that the State party’s non-refoulement obligations, including under article 3 of the Convention, had not been engaged with respect to the author. 5.3 If the Committee decides that the request for interim measures should not be withdrawn, the State party requests a timely consideration of the complaint on the basis that it is not complex, the documentation is complete and all domestic procedures have been finalized. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s submissions 6.1 On 11 April 2016, the complainant submitted comments on the State party’s submission. He argues that the review of the merits of the case by the State party is far from being “robust and comprehensive”, as the process was conducted under the non-statutory regime, outside the provisions of the Migration Act of 1958, by internal departmental decision makers and contractors. The complainant submits that the second independent merits review carried out considered the complementary protection provisions only in four paragraphs, which cannot be perceived as a robust and comprehensive review. 6.2 The complainant further considers that he has been denied the opportunity for a “robust and comprehensive” independent merits review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, pursuant to the statutory regime of the Migration Act of 1958. In the State party, the grounds of judicial review are limited to a very narrow consideration of any legal errors made by the administrative decision makers. Actual merits review is not permitted under judicial review. The courts do not assess whether the complainant is a refugee or whether he meets the conditions to benefit from the complementary protection provisions. 6.3 Moreover, in the context of the post-review protection claims assessment of 8 September 2014 and the assessment of the Minister’s guidelines of 8 October 2014, the unnamed ministerial intervention officer failed to make any assessment of the nonrefoulement obligations and only considered whether the findings of the previous internal decision makers were still valid. 6.4 The author also objects to the State party’s argument that he did not provide evidence of new circumstances and submits that he did so. In its letter of 8 February 2013, the Hazara Council of Australia stated that an Afghan member of parliament had conducted a review of the case and established that the complainant’s father was murdered by the Taliban, allegedly for spying for the Afghan authorities. In addition, the lack of mental health-care services in Afghanistan is widely recognized. While finding that the complainant would not be denied medical care in Afghanistan, the decision makers in charge of his case failed to consider whether his mental health condition could actually be treated in Afghanistan and failed to assess whether such a lack of treatment would result in cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The complainant thus requested the Committee not to lift the interim measures request. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim submitted in a complaint, the Committee must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.2 The Committee notes the State party’s submission that the communication is manifestly ill-founded, as the complainant has not substantiated the existence of a personal risk of torture if returned to Afghanistan and is thus inadmissible pursuant to rule 113 (b) of 7