CAT/C/49/D/417/2010 complainant’s claims and without the opportunity to test the claims at a hearing, it was not prepared to accept the complainant’s claims that he was a Falun Gong practitioner and had come to the adverse attention of the Chinese authorities as a result of these activities. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the complainant was a person to whom Australia had protection obligations under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.14 On appeal, the Federal Magistrates Court was not persuaded that the applicant had not attended the Tribunal hearing as a result of any fraudulent statement of his migration agent. 15 4.13 Although the complainant provided information in the course of his domestic proceedings and ministerial intervention requests regarding details of past ill-treatment, this information has been duly assessed by domestic processes. The domestic legal system in Australia offers a robust process of merits and judicial review to ensure that any error made by an initial decision maker can be corrected. In this case, the complainant appealed to the Refugee Review Tribunal, the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court of Australia and no error was identified. The documents provided by the complainant through ministerial intervention requests have been considered by the immigration department in the ministerial intervention assessment of 6 December 2007 as well as in subsequent assessments. Therefore, the State party submits that no new evidence has been provided in the complaint to substantiate the complainant’s claims that has not already been considered in domestic processes. 4.14 Apart from allegations of past ill-treatment, which have been considered by domestic processes, the complainant’s complaint also does not specify what treatment he might suffer under article 3 of the Convention; he does not provide any evidence regarding what form of torture he is likely to suffer in China. The State party therefore submits that the complainant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate his allegations regarding a potential breach of article 3 of the Convention. Therefore his complaint should be ruled inadmissible. 4.15 Should the Committee find the complainant’s allegations admissible, the State party submits that there are not substantial grounds to believe that the complainant will be in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to China. His claims for protection in Australia have been properly determined according to domestic law. The complainant does not disclose any information in his complaint that has not already been considered in domestic processes. He has used a number of opportunities available to him to appeal the initial Protection Visa decision by the immigration department and no error was identified. The documents provided by the complainant, including the notice of release from the reeducation through labour camp as well as the photocopy of a medical report dated 28 August 1999, although not provided in relation to the Protection Visa application, have been duly considered by the immigration department in previous ministerial intervention requests. The State party submits that there is no credible evidence provided by the complainant in his complaint to establish that he faces a personal and present danger of torture, therefore his claims under article 3 of the Convention should be dismissed for lack of merits. The complainants’ comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 12 January 2012, counsel provided comments on behalf of the complainant. She submits that she has no further information about what happened to the complainant after he was removed to China on 1 April 2010. 14 15 Ibid. SZKPX v. Minister for Immigration and Anor [2007] FMCA 1597, 10 September 2007. 7