CAT/C/71/D/754/2016 Federal Circuit Court’s decision, finding additionally that there was nothing to suggest that the Immigrants and Emigrants Act is applied irrationally, unreasonably or capriciously by every immigration official at the Colombo airport. Furthermore, the complainant’s case was found not to engage the non-compellable power of the Minister for Immigration and Border protection to intervene. 6.7 In response to the complainant’s claim that the conclusion that he had fabricated documents was discriminatory and his observation that the Refugee Review Tribunal had regard to not more than two of the factors listed in the guidelines on the assessment of credibility, the State party submits that the factors listed are neither prescriptive nor exhaustive. A credibility assessment is a matter for the Tribunal to determine, having regard to the individual circumstances and evidence. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 7.1 On 16 May 2019, the complainant noted that the State party had acknowledged that migration decisions could not be reviewed on the merits. He argues that the position of the State party, namely that its authorities are free to make negative credibility findings as long as they are free of legal error, weakens the robustness of the Australian legal process. The complainant argues that Australian judicial system does not always correct its own mistakes.20 The State party has not responded to his arguments on the credibility findings, including on his involvement in the confrontation about electoral violence and his claim that it was unreasonable to reject the documentary evidence. 7.2 The State party misrepresents the complainant’s argument on acquiescence by a public official, which he argues in relation to the possibility of torture upon return. The complainant underlines that his argument that cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment may spill over into torture is based on the findings of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. He reiterates that prolonged detention presents a real danger of torture owing to his status as a failed asylum seeker and his denunciation of election violence. Even though illegal departure is known to only generate a short period of time in the remand section of the Negombo Prison, the complainant’s denunciation of election violence means that there is no assurance about the length of detention in his case, in contrast to G.R. v. Australia. 7.3 Furthermore, the 2019 Easter bombings show that the complainant’s profile as a Muslim, in particular given his political activities, leaves him exposed to anti-Muslim sentiments in Sri Lanka, in which the police are refusing to intervene. 21 State party’s additional submissions 8.1 In a note verbale dated 6 November 2019, the State party provided additional submissions, observing that the complainant’s comments of 16 May 2019 had not altered its position on the admissibility and the merits.22 In response to the complainant’s argument that the Australian migration legislation does not provide asylum seekers with a fair or robust process, the State party observes that the complainant was interviewed to assess his protection visa application and that he was assisted by interpreters and a counsel throughout the proceedings. Decision makers are legally required to provide applicants with procedural fairness, and the Government of Australia is obliged to act honestly and fairly in handling claims. Each domestic authority thoroughly examined the complainant’s claims and found 20 21 22 The complainant refers to Justice Rangiah, “Procedural fairness in the courtroom: a speech to Federal Circuit Court Conference in Brisbane”, 25 January 2017. Zamira Rahim, “Sri Lanka riots: one dead as anti-Muslim violence spreads in wake of Easter massacre”, 14 May 2019; and Al Jazeera, “Sri Lanka orders nationwide curfew amid anti-Muslim riots”, 14 May 2019. The State party also reiterates that a transparent and reasoned admissibility consideration by the Committee is a key procedural element and welcomes the Committee’s decisions in I.P.W.F. v. Australia (CAT/C/63/D/618/2014), T.T.P. v. Australia (CAT/C/65/D/756/2016) and V.M. v. Australia (CAT/C/67/D/723/2015). 7