CAT/C/59/D/633/2014 acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. 3 Each case must be assessed on its own facts. Whether conduct amounts to torture will depend on the nature of the alleged act. The obligation of non-refoulement under article 3 of the Convention is confined to torture and does not extend to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.4 If it is established that the alleged act would constitute torture, article 3 also requires that there exist “substantial grounds for believing” that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture. That is, the complainant must be at a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture. The Committee has also stated that the danger must be “personal and present”.5 In order to show that a State party would be in breach of its non-refoulement obligations under article 3, an individual must be found to be personally at risk of torture should he or she be returned. The existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute sufficient grounds for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to that country; specific grounds must exist that indicate that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. 6 Therefore, additional grounds must be adduced by the complainant to show that he would be personally at risk.7 The onus of proving that there is a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture upon extradition or deportation rests on the complainant and the risk must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory and suspicion. 8 4.5 The State party submitted that the complainant’s claims were inadmissible pursuant to rule 113 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure on the grounds that the claims were manifestly unfounded. Under rule 113 (b), it is the responsibility of the complainant to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of his complaint. 9 The Government of Australia respectfully submitted that the complainant had failed to do so. If the Committee considered the complainant’s claims to be admissible, the Government of Australia submitted that they were also without merit. 4.6 The State party also submitted that the complainant’s claims had been thoroughly considered by a series of domestic decision makers, including the Department of Immigration and Border Protection during the determination of the complainant’s protection visa application, and the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT). The RRT decision was subject to judicial review by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia and the Federal Court of Australia. The complainant’s claims had also been assessed during the ministerial intervention process.10 Robust domestic processes had considered the complainant’s claims and determined that they were not credible and did not engage the non-refoulement obligations of the Government of Australia. In particular, the complainant’s claims had been assessed under the complementary protection provisions contained in subparagraph 36 (2) (aa) of the Migration Act 1958, which reflects the Government’s non-refoulement obligations under the Convention. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 4 See general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3, para. 3. Ibid., para. 1. Ibid., para. 7. See G.R.B. v. Sweden, para. 6.3. See communication No. 177/2001, H.M.H.I. v. Australia, decision of 1 May 2002, para. 6.5. See communication No. 203/2002, A.R. v. Netherlands, decision of 14 November 2003, para. 7.3. See general comment No. 1, para. 4. Section 48B of the Migration Act 1958 provides the Minister with the power to allow applicants in Australia to lodge a fresh protection visa application if the Minister thinks it is in the public interest to do so, where they have had a previous protection visa application refused or cancelled while in Australia. Section 417 of the Act provides the Minister with the power to substitute an RRT decision with a more favourable decision if the Minister thinks it is in the public interest to do so.