CAT/C/58/D/608/2014 considerable weight to findings of fact that were made by its authorities, which found that the State party does not owe the complainant protection under the Convention. 4.3 The State party points out that the complainant’s claims were considered during the protection visa application by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, the Refugee Review Tribunal, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia and the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. On 6 September, the Department refused the complainant’s protection visa application, after conducting an interview with the assistance of an interpreter. It accepted his accounts of his refusal to lend his truck to TMVP; however, it concluded that he did not face a real risk of harm by TMVP owing to that refusal. In that finding, the Department took into account the fact that the complainant remained in his village without incident for several days after the unknown men visited his family home; that his family remained in the village and has not experienced any further approaches, nor has the family ever experienced any threats, violence or retribution from TMVP over his refusal to lend his truck. It considered that he did not face a risk of torture due to his Tamil ethnicity and position as a failed asylum seeker, either in isolation or cumulatively. The UNHCR guidelines and country information available at the time indicated that individuals who had left Sri Lanka illegally were selected for screening but were not at risk of harm if they were not connected to any Government-opposed activities. There was no evidence that he had links with LTTE and he provided no evidence before the Department of Immigration and Citizenship that he would be suspected of possessing any such links. Accordingly, the Department concluded that the complainant’s claims were not credible and that there were no substantial grounds for believing that he would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of harm if returned to Sri Lanka. 4.4 Subsequently, the Refugee Review Tribunal carried out an external merits review of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship’s decision and on 26 July 2013, it confirmed that the complainant did not meet the criteria for a protection visa. The Tribunal received submissions from the complainant, assisted by a legal representative, and held two oral hearings, which were conducted with the assistance of a Tamil interpreter. During the hearings, the Tribunal made plain its concerns about the complainant’s claims, particularly in relation to changes in his evidence, in order to give him and his legal representative the opportunity to respond. At the first hearing, the complainant confirmed that he had no links with LTTE and the hearing focused on his fear of harm by TMVP. During the course of that hearing, he gave new statements indicating that in response to the attack in January 2012, TMVP had beaten members of his village. He also changed his description of the visit paid by unknown men to his family home on or about 19 March 2012. Notably, at the second hearing, the complainant stated, for the first time, that he had worked for LTTE for six months. The State party points out that there was no expectation at the first oral hearing before the Tribunal that a second hearing would necessarily take place. As such, at the time of the first hearing, the complainant would have understood that that was his final opportunity to give evidence about his links with LTTE or to make allegations against it. In the light of the significant inconsistencies in the information provided by the complainant, the Tribunal concluded that he had deliberately fabricated his claims and did not accept that he was a truthful witness. 4.5 The Tribunal, however, considered whether he was at risk of harm on return to Sri Lanka owing to his position as a failed asylum seeker, his ethnicity and the presence of TMVP in eastern Sri Lanka. The 2012 UNHCR guidelines indicated that Tamil ethnicity in itself was not a risk factor, and country information did not suggest that LTTE connections were imputed on the basis of Tamil ethnicity alone. Likewise, a failed asylum seeker did not face a real risk of serious harm in Sri Lanka solely because the person was so identified. As to the general risk posed by TMVP, available country information indicated that militias and armed groups associated with TMVP in the east of Sri Lanka targeted individuals who they perceived to be their opponents. In that regard, the Tribunal found that the complainant 6