CAT/C/49/D/417/2010 his numerous ministerial intervention requests, had been reviewed in the course of domestic proceedings and was deemed neither credible nor sufficient in order to establish that the complainant faced a personal and present danger of torture upon return to China. 7.5 The Committee recalls that under the terms of its general comment No. 1, it gives considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned, while at the same time it is not bound by such findings and instead has the power, provided by article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, of free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case. 19 7.6 In the instant case, the Committee notes the lack of details provided by the complainant concerning his Falun Gong activities and several inconsistencies in his account of facts that undermine the general credibility of his claims, as well as his failure to provide any compelling evidence corroborating his claims. In the light of this, the Committee agrees with the determination of the State party’s competent authorities that the complainant’s arguments concerning the inconsistencies in his claims, his delayed application for judicial review of the Refugee Review Tribunal decision, his failure to attend the Tribunal hearing, and his claim about the alleged fraudulent behaviour of his migration agent lack credibility. The Committee further observes that the complainant was able to leave China freely on two occasions and travel to Australia, and that in such circumstances it is difficult to conclude that he was of interest to the Chinese authorities. 7.7 Taking into account all the information made available to it, the Committee considers that the complainant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he faced a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture at the time he was deported back to China. 8. The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, concludes that the deportation of the complainant to China did not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. [Adopted in English, French and Spanish, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic, Chinese and Russian as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.] 19 See, inter alia, communication No. 356/2008, N.S. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 6 May 2010. 11