CAT/C/34/D/211/2002 Page 4 protection visa, on the ground that the second application was invalid and that the RRT thus had no jurisdiction. On 8 November 2000, a fourth request under section 417 was made, which was later rejected on 11 December 2001. On 7 March 2001, the Federal Court dismissed an appeal against the RRT’s decision. On 16 August 2001, the Full Federal Court dismissed an appeal against the Federal Court’s decision. On 7 December 2001 and 19 February 2002, fifth and sixth requests under section 417 were made, which were later rejected on 22 May 2002. On 28 February 2002, the complainant withdrew an application to the High Court for leave to appeal the Full Federal Court’s decision. 2.6 On 7 June 2002, the complainant lodged the present complaint to Committee, requesting interim measures to stay his removal. On 10 June, Committee declined the request but registered and transmitted the complaint to State party for comment. On 13 June 2002, the complainant was removed to Lanka. the the the Sri The complaint 3.1 The complainant contended that his return would violate article 3, and that he should be returned only if it could be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the claim was false. He argued that the inconsistencies in his evidence were not such as to make his testimony unreliable. He contends that the “RRT has used a “very high standard of proof as such as beyond reasonable doubt when the standard of proof of refugee cases is the lowest. It has not carefully considered whether there is a ‘real chance’ of the [complainant] being persecuted if he returns to Sri Lanka. It is apparent from the RRT decision that the Tribunal has acted biasly [sic] and decided his case against the weight of evidence.” The complainant criticized the reliability of country information before the RRT. He finally contended that the second RRT decision finding no jurisdiction was “grossly unreasonable” when the Department had accepted receiving his second application and interviewed him. The complainant argued that there were substantial grounds of fearing exposure to torture, contending that the existence of systematic human rights violations in a country sufficiently shows such grounds. 1 The State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 By submission of 17 November 2002, the State party contests the admissibility and merits of the complaint. On the claim that the decision to remove him to Sri Lanka wo uld violate article 3 of the Convention, the State party submits that his evidence lacked credibility and that the communication should be held inadmissible as incompatible with article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention and Rule 107, paragraph 1(d), of the Committee’s Rules of Procedure. Alternatively, the evidence is not sufficient to establish a real, foreseeable and personal risk of being subjected to torture and the communication should be dismissed for lack of merit. 4.2 The State party submits that refoulement cases, by their very nature, are about events outside the State party’s immediate knowledge and control. In this context the credibility of the complainant's evidence assumes greater importance and goes both to 1 In support, the complainant refers to Country Reports of the U.S. State Department of 1996 and 1997, Amnesty international reports of 1996 and 1998, and a variety of newspaper reports.