CAT/C/34/D/211/2002 Page 5 the admissibility and merit of the case. It argues that in the course of determining his entitlement to a protection visa, the complainant was provided with ample opportunity to present his case but was consistently unable to demonstrate the bona fides of his claim. The State party, adopting the RRT’s reasons for decision, rejects his contention that the inconsistencies in his evidence were not material. It points out that after a detailed examination of all the facts and available evidence, the Tribunal concluded unequivocally that the complainant lacked credibility and that his evidence was fabricated. 4.3 The State party submits that the RRT’s approach in this case to the question of credibility is consistent with the principles applied by the Committee. The latter’s jurisprudence establishes the principle that complete accuracy in the application for asylum is seldom to be expected of victims of torture. 2 Nevertheless, the Committee must satisfy itself that all the facts invoked by the complainant are ‘sufficiently substantiated and reliable’. 3 Similarly, while the RRT does not attach weight to minor inconsistencies, it is not required to accept on face value the claims of an applicant although it may give the benefit of the doubt to an applicant who is otherwise credible and plausible. In this case, the inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence were extensive and fundamental to his claim. The State party recalls that, while not bound to follow a domestic tribunal’s findings of fact, the Committee will give considerable weight to the facts found by such a tribunal. 4 Therefore, appropriate weight should be given to the findings of the RRT taking note of the inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence before the domestic authorities. 4.4 The State party submits that its obligations under article 3 of the Convention were taken into account before making the decision that the complainant was to be removed from Australia. Under section 417 of the Migration Act, the Minister for Immigration has a discretionary power to substitute a more favourable decision. All cases subject to an adverse decision by the RRT are automatically referred for assessment under Ministerial Guidelines on stay in Australia on humanitarian grounds. The Guidelines incorporate the obligation of non-refoulement under article 3 of the Convention. It was determined that the complainant did not to meet the requirements of the Guidelines. The complainant also requested the Minister to exercise his discretion under section 417 on six separate occasions. The Minister generally does not consider repeat requests under section 417 in the absence of new information. A number of requests were considered not to meet the requirements of the Guidelines and not referred to the Minister. In the case of those requests referred to Minister, he declined to consider an exercise of his discretion under section 417. 4.5 The State party points out, on this claim, that the complainant was unable to substantiate his claim for protection despite the opportunity to file two separate applications for a protection visa. The first RRT decision found that the complainant’s evidence lacked credibility and that some evidence was fabricated. His claim was also separately assessed against the Guidelines for stay in Australian on 2 Kisoki v Sweden, Communication No 41/1996, Views adopted on 8 May 1996, at 9.3; Tala v Sweden, Communication No 43/1996, Views adopted on 15 November 1996, at 10.3. 3 Aemei v Switzerland, Communication No 34/1995, Views adopted on 9 May 1997, at 9.6. 4 General Comment on the Implementation of Article 3 in the Context of Article 22 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 23 November 1997, at 2.