CAT/C/63/D/618/2014 assessed and rejected by the Refugee Review Tribunal and there had thus been no failure to consider a claim. 5.8 On 16 October 2013, the complainant made a request for a ministerial intervention under sections 417 and 48B of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). In his initial request for a ministerial intervention, the complainant made new claims which had not previously been raised before the domestic decision makers, regarding his alleged involvement in people smuggling and alleged family links to people smugglers. However, he did not provide any credible information that would enhance his chances of making a successful protection visa application. Therefore, on 14 January 2014, the Department determined that the complainant’s claim did not meet the criteria for referral to the Assistant Minister to request the exercise of his power under sections 48 B and 417 of the Act. On 27 August 2014, the author made a further request for ministerial intervention. On 16 September 2014, following the submission of his complaint to the Committee, the Department assessed the complainant’s claim for ministerial intervention, before finding again that the case did not meet the criteria for referral to the Minister. 5.9 The claims that the complainant’s family (his uncle and two cousins) had participated in people smuggling and his claims of a risk of being subjected to the same treatment as his uncle Nihal, if returned to Sri Lanka, were considered in the context of both requests for ministerial intervention, taking into account the serious concerns about the complainant’s general credibility. When asked if he knew anyone on Christmas Island or anyone else in Australia upon arrival or at the time of his protection visa application on 30 June 2012, the complainant said he did not. Without commenting on the alleged treatment of Mr. Pieris upon his return to Sri Lanka, the Department noted that Mr. Pieris had returned voluntarily to Sri Lanka with the assistance of the International Organization for Migration, following the granting of visas to his sons. Moreover, the Department found that there was no evidence that the author was actually related in any way to those three men, or that the details of their cases had any significant bearing on his own. 5.10 The State party submits that the complainant admitted that his allegations of engagement in people smuggling, as he acted as a crew member on the boat that brought him to Australia, were not raised in his initial application to the Department or the Refugee Review Tribunal, but only as part of his requests for ministerial intervention. In the light of the serious concerns that the Department and the Tribunal had regarding the complainant’s credibility and the plausibility of his claims, and the lack of any other evidence to support his new claim, this claim was considered unconvincing and unsubstantiated. When assessing the author’s claims for ministerial intervention, the Department noted that the author was identified as a potential crew member by other asylum seekers who travelled on the same boat with him to Australia; however, he did not self-identify as such at that time. An Australian Federal Police investigation into his conduct was finalized after his arrival in Australia, and the author was not prosecuted for any people smuggling offence and is no longer a person of interest to the Australian Federal Police. As such, the Department found that there was no evidence to suggest that the author had ever been involved in people smuggling, nor was there any reason to believe that the Sri Lankan authorities would suspect him of being involved in such activities. The Department considered that even if the complainant were to be charged with people smuggling offences upon his return to Sri Lanka, that would not, in and of itself, amount to a real risk that the author would suffer significant harm. The complainant therefore did not provide any new information to the Committee to alter the conclusion reached in this regard. The complainant’s submission of further information on 14 October 2014 regarding his contact with his uncle Nihal, Nihal’s sons Amith and Asith, and another person named Rokshan in Sri Lanka in February and March 2012 concerning the organization of the boat journey that took him to Australia does not represent credible new information that could enhance his chance of a successful protection visa application. 5.11 The State party contests the complainant’s claims that as a failed asylum seeker who departed Sri Lanka illegally, and who has alleged links to people smuggling activities, he would be arrested and detained, and possibly tortured if returned to Sri Lanka. It argues, referring to article 3 (2) of the Convention, that the existence of a general risk of violence does not constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in 7