Advance unedited version CAT/C/60/D/716/2015 village. The RRT also considered that documents provided by him in support of his claims (including the two letters from a local parliamentarian and his father, attached to his complaint before the Committee) were selfserving and contradictory. As a result, the RRT did not regard them as having any evidentiary weight. Against this background, the RRT was not satisfied that he was at risk of harm or persecution because of his Tamil ethnicity, his Hindu faith, actual or imputed political opinion or his status as a failed asylum seeker or as a Tamil involved in a land dispute. Nor did the RRT consider that he would be suspected by Sri Lankan authorities of supporting the LTTE. 4.4 On 12 December 2013, the FCCA dismissed the complainant’s application for judicial review of the RRT decision, concluding that there was no legal error with the RRT’s decision. While not legally represented at the hearings before the FCCA, the complainant received legal advice in preparing his case, made oral submissions with the assistance of an interpreter and was granted leave to appeal for a review of the RRT’s decision. Subsequently, the FCA examined and dismissed his claim against that decision. Any disadvantage that he might have faced at the FCCA hearings was remedied by the fact that he was granted leave to appeal and was legally represented at the FCA. 4.5 As to the complainant’s allegation that he would be detained and torture upon return due to his Tamil ethnicity and his status as failed asylum seeker who left Sri Lanka illegally, the State party refers to the RRT’s decision and maintains that current country of origin information indicates that there may be a risk of torture and mistreatment for returnees who are suspected of committing serious crimes, including people-smuggling or terrorism offences, which is not the complainant’s case. 4.6 Concerning the complainant’s mental health and the document dated 12 May 2014 attached to his complaint (see 3.2 above, footnote 14), the State party notes that the RRT considered to his claims that he was suffering from mental illness, including depression; that at that time, he had not produced any psychological report or attended any counselling sessions; and that on the basis of his behaviour and answers during the RRT hearings, the RRT found he was not prevented from participation in the proceedings due to mental health issues. Furthermore, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP) assessed the allegations regarding the complainant’s mental health, and noted that the document dated 14 May 2014 submitted to the Committee (but not to the Australian authorities) was not written by a psychologist or psychiatrist, but by an ‘accredited mental health social worker’. As such, the DIBP found that this document cannot be considered as evidence sufficient to contradict the findings by Australian authorities that the complainant did not suffer harm in Sri Lanka in the past, and would not suffer harm in Sri Lanka if returned. 4.7 With regard to the copy of the complaint allegedly filed by the complainant’s father to the police on 4 July 2013 (not submitted to Australian authorities, see footnote 10 above), the State party notes that the complainant never claimed before Australian authorities to be an active supporter of a Tamil political party. Rather, he maintained that his father’s position as head of a Hindu temple and the tensions between the Hindu and Muslim communities was the motivating factor for his alleged assaults. If the complainant had been an active supporter of a Tamil political party, he would most likely have raised this fact before the State party’s authorities. 4.8 The State party maintains that its authorities have specifically and carefully considered whether his condition as failed asylum-seeker may put him at serious risk of torture, taking into account relevant country information contained in UNHCR’s, States’ and well-known NGO’s reports. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 7