CAT/C/49/D/417/2010 that he was tortured in detention, and that the trauma associated with this torture was such that he attempted suicide. 2.2 On 2 October 2002, the complainant arrived in Australia on a “676 Visitor Visa” (short stay) for New Zealand and Australia. He then left Australia on 9 October 2002. On 1 October 2003, he came to Australia for the second time (second visit) on another short-stay visa. On 10 October 2003, he applied for a Protection Visa on grounds of persecution as a Falun Gong practitioner. His application was refused by an officer of the Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs on 24 December 2003. 2.3 The complainant filed an appeal with the Refugee Review Tribunal. On 24 March 2004, the Tribunal rejected the appeal in his absence. It noted that the complainant failed to appear at a hearing scheduled on 18 March 2003, that he had advised the Tribunal that he did not want to give oral evidence, and that he had further consented that the Tribunal proceed to make a decision without his appearance. The complainant contends that he did not wish to attend the above-mentioned hearing as he had learned that the migration agent had fabricated some of the facts of his claim, and that he therefore feared to confront that agent during the hearing. In the complainant’s absence, the Tribunal adopted a decision refusing protection on the ground that the complainant’s application: (a) contained no details about the nature of his practice of Falun Gong; (b) gave no details of how he became organizer of his group; (c) lacked information about police violence; and (d) gave insufficient details of the brainwashing he was allegedly subjected to for three months. 2.4 It was not until May 2007 (i.e.. three years after the Refugee Review Tribunal’s decision) that the complainant applied for judicial review before the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia, and explained that his migration agent had not given the correct factual information about his claims. On 10 September 2007, the Court dismissed his application, on the ground that the complainant would have had the chance to put the true facts to the Refugee Review Tribunal if he had attended the hearing. The complainant’s appeal to the Federal Court of Australia against the Federal Magistrates Court decision was dismissed on 12 December 2008. The complainant mentions that he did not apply to the High Court of Australia for special leave to appeal the judgment of the Federal Court as it would not have constituted an effective remedy, because the Federal Court had already determined it was unable to consider merits arguments. 2.5 The complainant also sought seven ministerial interventions between 2004 and 2009, but all requests were refused. On 29 March 2010, his last ministerial intervention request was also refused and he was informed that he would be removed at noon on 1 April 2010. The complaint 3. The complainant claims that if he were returned to China, he would be subjected to torture and his forcible return would constitute a breach by Australia of his rights under article 3 of the Convention. State party’s observations on the admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 3 November 2011, the State party submitted that the complaint should be ruled inadmissible as unsubstantiated or, should the Committee be of the view that the complainant’s allegations are admissible, they should be dismissed as being without merit. 4.2 The State party further provides a summary of facts and allegations advanced by the complainant. The complainant is a Chinese national who arrived in Australia on a subclass 676 (Tourist) visa in Australia on 2 October 2002. He departed Australia on 9 October 2002 and then re-entered Australia on 1 October 2003 on a subclass 676 (Tourist) visa. On 10 October 2003, the complainant applied to the immigration department for a Protection Visa 3