CAT/C/71/D/754/2016 6.2 The State party observes that, following a decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal, a protection visa applicant can only challenge the legality, not the merits, of the decision. According to the State party, the Committee has previously considered that the Australian legal system offers a robust process of merits and judicial review to ensure that any error made by an initial decision maker can be corrected. 19 The Tribunal afforded the complainant several opportunities to provide written and oral responses to the adverse information that led to the credibility findings. The Federal Circuit Court and the Federal Court of Australia confirmed that the Tribunal’s decision does not contain legal errors. 6.3 The State party reiterates that the complainant provides no evidence for his assertion that the threatening telephone calls were carried out with the acquiescence of the police. Such threats alone do not fall within the definition of torture under article 1 of the Convention. As for the claimed conditions in the Negombo Prison, the complainant relies on general information, without demonstrating a personal risk of harm. 6.4 In response to the complainant’s claims concerning the credibility findings by the Refugee Review Tribunal, the State party reiterates that it is appropriate for the Committee to give considerable weight to findings of fact made by the Australian authorities. A decision maker of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection interviewed the complainant and considered his written claims, the interview record, post-interview submissions, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees eligibility guidelines for assessing the international protection needs of asylum seekers from Sri Lanka, and country information. The decision maker concluded that Muslims and Tamils are not persecuted in Sri Lanka on any general basis, such that the complainant’s fear of serious harm on these grounds is not well-founded. Laws relating to illegal departure are of general application. The decision maker also found that there is no real chance of persecution owing to the political opinion imputed to the complainant, as he had made no claim that he or any family members had been detained on suspicion of being an LTTE member or supporter. It was concluded that the complainant’s claims were not substantiated and not credible and that he was not a refugee under the Refugee Convention and does not qualify for complementary protection. 6.5 Upon review of the merits, the Refugee Review Tribunal considered the complainant’s oral and written submissions and country information from various sources. The Tribunal had significant concerns about his credibility, but allowed for the possibility of discrepancies arising out of genuine memory lapses, nervousness and the way in which questions were asked. The Tribunal only accepted the complainant’s claims regarding his origins, residence, religion, language, perceived ethnicity and marital status, and his claim that he would be viewed as a failed asylum seeker and returnee from Australia. It rejected his claim that he was actively involved in the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress, but accepted that he supported it and voted for it. It considered his written submissions, including the police report, and placed no weight on it owing to his lack of credibility and information on the prevalence of document fraud. The Tribunal found no evidence that he was of interest to anyone, including the authorities and opposition parties, because of his low level of support for the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress. Neither did it accept that he would be targeted as a Tamil Muslim from the East or, on that ground, that he would be labelled as a government opponent or LTTE supporter. The Tribunal accepted the possibility, owing to his illegal departure, that he would be remanded in conditions that are overcrowded, unsanitary and uncomfortable, but did not accept that such conditions amount to persecution. The Tribunal therefore confirmed the first-instance decision. 6.6 The Federal Circuit Court dismissed the complainant’s application for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal. It found that the Tribunal had had regard to the ministerial guidelines, the nature of prison conditions in Sri Lanka and the enforcement of the Sri Lankan Immigrants and Emigrants Act of 1949, which it did not find had been applied selectively, arbitrarily or discriminatorily. The Federal Court of Australia upheld the 19 6 (CAT/C/58/D/599/2014), para. 7.3. The State party requests that the Committee specifically consider and respond to the arguments made by the State party in respect of the admissibility of the present complaint. The State party refers to its submissions in Y.Z.S. v. Australia, para. 4.13.