CAT/C/63/D/618/2014 4.5 The complainant reiterates the allegations made in his initial communication regarding an incident that took place in August 2010, when a group of five or six people went to his family home in search of him while he was at sea. In addition, he provides details about how the boat was organized for the trip to Australia and explains that he was paid 7,500 rupees to serve as a crew member. 4.6 The complainant also reiterates his claims that he is at risk of being subjected to torture due to his suspected links with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and his involvement with the United National Party. Furthermore, he believes himself to be at risk of being subjected to torture by members of the United People’s Freedom Alliance as he may not be afforded protection by the police, which would allow Alliance members to act with impunity. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 16 April 2015, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits of the complaint. It argues that the complainant’s allegations are inadmissible as they are manifestly unfounded, since he did not establish a prima facie case. Should the Committee consider any of the complainant’s claims to be admissible, these allegations should be dismissed for lack of merit. The complainant has not submitted sufficient evidence to support his claim that there are substantial grounds for believing that he is in danger of being subjected to torture,6 as defined in article 1 of the Convention, if he were returned to Sri Lanka. 5.2 The State party holds that all the complainant’s claims presented to the Committee have already been assessed by a series of domestic decision makers, including the Refugee Review Tribunal, and have been subject to judicial review by the Federal Circuit Court and the Federal Court of Australia, which determined that the complainant’s claims were not credible. While the Australian authorities took particular account of the fact that “complete accuracy can seldom be expected from victims of torture”, 7 they considered that the complainant’s claims did not engage the State party’s non-refoulement obligations. The State party argues that the Committee is not an appellate or judicial body, and it should give considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by organs of a State party. In particular, the complainant’s claims have been assessed under the complementary protection provisions contained in paragraph 36 (2) (aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), which implements the non-refoulement obligations of the Government of Australia under the Convention and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Moreover, the complainant has not provided any new evidence in his submissions to the Committee. 5.3 The State party recalls that the complainant lodged an application for a protection visa on 30 June 2012. He was granted two bridging (general) visas (from 30 January 2013 to 16 October 2013 and from 16 July 2014 to 27 August 2014) while his protection visa application was under consideration by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. On 1 October 2012, the complainant’s protection visa application was refused. Having examined all the information submitted by the applicant, the primary decision maker considered that, although the author may have been involved in politics on behalf of the United National Party, his political profile was not significant enough to warrant ongoing adverse interest in him by the United People’s Freedom Alliance, its supporting factions or the Sri Lankan authorities. Furthermore, his low-level political engagement ended after the 2010 elections. The primary decision maker also found that the author’s fear of persecution on the grounds that he was a failed asylum seeker did not amount to a real risk of serious harm as the decision maker was not satisfied that returned asylum seekers were being detained or charged by the Sri Lankan authorities, except on the grounds of other outstanding criminal charges. 5.4 Moreover, the primary decision maker found that Sinhalese Catholics do not have a profile of risk in Sri Lanka. Accordingly, there were no substantial grounds for believing 6 7 See, e.g., communications No. 39/1996, Paez v. Sweden (CAT/C/18/D/39/1996), para. 14.5; and No. 83/1997, G.R.B. v. Sweden (CAT/C/20/D/83/1997), para. 6.5. See, e.g., communication No. 21/1995, Alan v. Switzerland (CAT/C/16/D/21/1995), para. 11.3. 5