CAT/C/71/D/754/2016 non-governmental organizations and concluded that his claims were not credible, that he had no actual or perceived links to LTTE, and that there was not a real chance that he would suffer serious harm on that ground, or as a Tamil Muslim. The decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal was subject to judicial review by the Federal Circuit Court and the Federal Court of Australia. The complainant also unsuccessfully sought ministerial intervention under section 417 of the Migration Act of 1958. He did not provide any new evidence in his complaint before the Committee. 4.6 The State party recalls that the Committee gives considerable weight to findings of fact made by the organs of a State party. 12 It requests that the Committee accept that its authorities have thoroughly assessed the claims. Even though the complainant submits that he was attacked by two people after stopping several people from voting, he does not elaborate on the way in which it could cause him to be scrutinized more closely than others. His claim of a risk of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is therefore manifestly unfounded. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 10 February 2017, the complainant notes having specified the nature of the threatening telephone calls as death threats before the Refugee Review Tribunal. He reported to the Tribunal threats received on his mobile telephone on 8, 11 and 13 October 2011. After switching it off, he received more threats on a landline until January 2012. Having escaped from men in a white van, the threatening calls began again and continued until he left the country in June 2012. The complainant also notes that the inaction of the police following his complaint was due to political pressure. In any case, the definitional requirement that torture be at the hands of public officials includes the failure to prevent it. Given that the police did not act on his complaint, that inaction will continue with respect to the death threats. The threats and the police’s inaction qualify as torture, given that torture may be of a psychological nature.13 5.2 The complainant argues that the detention conditions in the Negombo Prison present the danger that the cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment there will spill over into torture. Given his status as a failed asylum seeker, his denunciation of election violence and his suspected LTTE links, he runs the risk of being subjected to torture through prolonged detention and interrogation. As noted in relation to Sri Lanka by the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, torture is a common practice carried out in relation to regular criminal investigations in a large majority of cases by the Criminal Investigation Department of the police. The Special Rapporteur further concluded that access to a detainee for continuous questioning and to obtain confessions of criminal suspects could also be an incentive for torture.14 5.3 The complainant disputes the State party’s argument that his claim was assessed through robust domestic processes. Under section 474 of the Migration Act and as confirmed by domestic jurisprudence, decisions of the Refugee Review Tribunal cannot be invalidated except if the complainant was denied due legal process.15 This severely restricted his capacity to appeal a decision that could result in his refoulement. 5.4 The complainant argues that the Refugee Review Tribunal’s credibility findings were unreasonable. On the basis of his incorrect answers about the history of his brother’s career, 12 13 14 15 4 Committee against Torture, general comment No. 4, para. 50. Human Rights Committee, communication No. 74/1980, views of the Committee in the case of Miguel Angel Estrella v. Uruguay, para. 8.3; Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala, Judgment, 27 November 2003, para. 92; and Cantoral Benavides v. Peru, Judgment, 18 August 2000, para. 102. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Preliminary observations and recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, Mr. Juan E. Mendez on the official joint visit to Sri Lanka – 29 April to 7 May 2016”, 7 May 2016. Available at www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=19943&LangID=E. High Court of Australia, SZBEL v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, 15 December 2006.