CAT/C/59/D/633/2014 trouble. However, the decision maker noted that the complainant was unable to point to any subsequent occurrences of harassment and was able to live in the house for a further four years without incident. The decision maker concluded that the complainant did not face a real risk of significant harm should he be returned to Sri Lanka. Having concluded that the complainant was not a refugee and was not owed complementary protection under section 36 (2) (aa) of the Migration Act, the decision maker refused the complainant’s protection visa application. 4.12 The State party submitted that the complainant subsequently applied, on 24 October 2012, for an independent merits review to RRT, a specialist independent review body that provides full and independent review of decisions concerning protection visas. On 20 August 2013, RRT affirmed the decision of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection not to grant the complainant a protection visa. The complainant was physically present at the RRT hearing, and was able to make oral submissions with the assistance of an interpreter. 4.13 RRT found that aspects of the complainant’s evidence lacked credibility, and that he had given unconvincing answers to questions about inconsistencies in his evidence. Ultimately RRT did not accept that the complainant had been questioned and assaulted by the police in connection with his work as a rickshaw driver, that the Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal had ever occupied his family home, or that his wife had been harassed by the authorities since the complainant’s departure to Australia. RRT also concluded that the complainant had not been truthful about the reasons why he had left Sri Lanka and that he was not of interest to the Sri Lankan authorities at the time that he left Sri Lanka to travel to Australia. RRT did not consider that the complainant would be of interest to the Sri Lankan authorities or paramilitary groups operating in the Batticaloa area as a result of his perceived support of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. RRT accepted that the complainant had been abducted by the Tamil Eelam Liberation Organization in 1987, but found that there was no evidence to indicate that he was of continued interest to the authorities for that reason. RRT stated that it did not accept the complainant’s claims that he would face harm because of his experience in one of the organization’s camps in 1987 or because of his payments to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam during the war. RRT did not consider that the complainant would be perceived as a supporter of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam or otherwise imputed with an adverse political opinion. The complainant’s status as a failed asylum seeker did not, in the view of RRT, put him at a real risk of significant harm if returned to Sri Lanka. RRT accepted that the complainant would be charged with offences under the Immigrants and Emigrants Act of Sri Lanka and that he might be detained for a number of days before facing an ultimate penalty of a fine. Based on the available country information, RRT did not consider that he would be detained for a prolonged period or otherwise face significant harm, including torture, upon return to Sri Lanka. Having considered guidelines issued by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the available country information regarding the treatment of Tamil returnees, RRT did not accept that there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia, there would be a real risk that the complainant would suffer significant harm, including torture, under section 36 (2) (aa) of the Migration Act. 4.14 On 26 June 2014, the Federal Circuit Court dismissed the complainant’s application for judicial review of the RRT decision. The complainant was physically present at the Court hearing and made oral submissions. The Court concluded that there was no legal error with the RRT decision, and that the complainant had been accorded procedural fairness. As such, the complainant’s application for judicial review was dismissed. 4.15 On 18 July 2014, the complainant made a request for ministerial intervention under sections 417 and 48B of the Migration Act. Under those provisions, the Minister for 6