CAT/C/58/D/608/2014 would not be perceived as being opposed to TMVP because he had refused to provide it with his truck or for any other reason. 4.6 With regard to the complainant’s request for ministerial intervention under sections 417 and 48 B of the Migration Act, the State party notes that under those powers, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection can intervene in individual cases if he thinks that it is in the public interest to do so. The complainant’s request focused on his alleged links to LTTE. The State party points out that the only supporting documentation that he provided to the Minister was in a foreign language. The Minister, however, was unable to consider the documentation as no English translation was provided. In that regard, publicly available information on requesting ministerial intervention provides that documents not written in English should be accompanied by an English translation by a translator accredited by the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters. In the absence of a translation, the Minister considered his request in the light of other available information, and concluded that it did not meet the guidelines for ministerial intervention. 4.7 On 31 March 2016, the State party reiterated its observations and maintained that there were not substantial grounds for believing that the complainant faced a real risk of irreparable harm if returned to Sri Lanka. It therefore considered the Committee’s request for interim measures to be unwarranted. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 11 April 2016, the complainant provided his comments on the State party’s observations. He contested the State party’s assertions that his request for visa protection was considered in a thorough and adequate fashion. After concluding that the complainant was not entitled to refugee protection, the Refugee Review Tribunal assessed only briefly whether he was entitled to complementary protection. 5.2 Although the Tribunal stated that individuals who left Sri Lanka in breach of departure laws would be subjected to an interrogation process upon return for a maximum of three days, it considered that this would not constitute significant harm that warranted granting complementary protection. The Tribunal failed to consider the possible harassment the complainant might face on return to his home village in Sri Lanka by members of TMVP or anyone else. The complainant refers to a document that contains information about the case of a Tamil failed asylum seeker who was interrogated by the authorities on arrival in Colombo, as he was considered to have connections with LTTE, and after his release he was allegedly harassed and on one occasion severely beaten by the police in his village.5 Likewise, another report refers to the case of a Tamil failed asylum seeker who had allegedly witnessed a murder committed by a TMVP high-ranking officer, and was harassed and tortured by the officer after his return to Sri Lanka.6 5.3 The Tribunal found his accounts not credible due to the inconsistences. However, it should have been more understanding, since he explained the reasons behind the inconsistences. In particular, the Tribunal found that his allegation that he had worked for LTTE in 2004 was not credible because he had not made the allegation earlier in the proceedings. The complainant submits that there are reasons why many Sri Lankans initially hide their connection with LTTE, such as the State party’s policy of indefinite detention of those found to be a security risk because of their involvement with LTTE. 5 6 See Edmund Rice Centre, “Sri Lanka: Australia continues to deport people to danger”, 5 May 2015. See Edmund Rice Centre, “Australia sponsored torture in Sri Lanka? The foreseen consequences of supporting a brutal regime to stop the boats at any cost”, 12 August 2015. 7