CAT/C/61/D/720/2015 4.3 The State party recalls that the non-refoulement obligations are contained in article 3 of the Convention and do not extend to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. It submits that the complainant’s claim concerning possible incarceration on return to Sri Lanka, including the prison conditions, should be ruled inadmissible pursuant to article 22 (2) of the Convention and rule 113 (c) of the Committee’s rules of procedure as being incompatible with the provisions of the Convention. 4.4 The State party submits that it is the responsibility of the complainant to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of his complaint and he has failed to do so. The complainant’s claims have been thoroughly considered by a series of domestic decision makers, including the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, in the assessment of his protection visa application, and the Refugee Review Tribunal. The complainant also sought a judicial review by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia and the Federal Court of Australia for legal error in the decision of the Tribunal. His claims were also assessed during the Ministerial intervention process. Robust domestic processes considered the complainant’s case and determined that his claims were not credible and did not engage the State party’s non-refoulement obligations. In particular, his claims were assessed under the complementary protection provisions of section 36 (2) (aa) of the Migration Act, which reflects the State party’s non-refoulement obligations under the Convention and under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 4.5 The State party refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention, in which it is stated that the Committee is not an appellate or judicial body, but rather gives considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned. It requests the Committee to accept that it thoroughly assessed the complainant’s claims through its domestic processes and found that it does not owe the complainant protection obligations under the Convention. The State party nonetheless acknowledges that complete accuracy is seldom to be expected by victims of torture 13 and that factor was taken into consideration by all the domestic decision makers in forming their views on the complainant’s credibility. For example, in assessing the complainant’s protection visa application, the decision maker found him to be generally credible and had no reason to doubt his credibility as the information provided had been consistent throughout his entry and protection visa interviews. 4.6 The complainant filed an application for a protection visa on 6 August 2012 after the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection intervened to allow him to apply under section 46A of the Migration Act. 14 The Minister also intervened pursuant to section 195A of the Act to grant the complainant a bridging visa on 30 August 2012 to allow his release from immigration detention while his protection visa application was under consideration. 15 On 11 September 2012, the complainant’s protection visa application was refused. The decision maker interviewed the complainant (with the assistance of a Tamil-language interpreter) and considered relevant material, such as country information provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and available open source material. The complainant claimed that he feared serious harm, including the possibility of death, if he returned to Sri Lanka. 4.7 The decision maker considered whether Tamils, as a group, were persecuted by the authorities in Sri Lanka. Although accepting that the complainant’s detention in 2009 was persecutory, the decision maker considered that the test for protection was forward looking and, with reference to relevant country information, concluded that persons of Tamil ethnicity were not persecuted in Sri Lanka solely for reasons of being Tamils. 16 The 13 14 15 16 4 See communication No. 21/1995, Alan v Switzerland, decision of 8 May 1996, para 11.3. Section 46A of the Migration Act (1958) provides that a person who is in Australia and who is an unlawful non-citizen may not make a valid application for a visa. The Minister may lift this bar if he or she that it is in the public interest to do so. Section 195A of the Migration Act (1958) provides that the Minister may grant a visa to a person who is in immigration detention if the Minister thinks that it is in the public interest to do so. Country information considered included Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from Sri Lanka (5 July 2010) which states that “there is no longer a need for group-based protection