CCPR/C/112/D/2053/2011 State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 On 20 December 2011, the State party submitted observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication, in which it invited the Committee to declare the author’s allegations under articles 6, 7 and 18 to be inadmissible, or, in the alternative, devoid of merit. 4.2 The State party recalls that, further to the consideration of his application for a protection visa on 9 April 2009, the author was found not to be a person in need of protection under the 1951 Convention, and was notified of that decision on 8 July 2009. On 28 October 2009, RRT confirmed the initial decision not to grant him a protection visa. On 28 October 2009, the RRT decision maker also referred the case to the Minister of Immigration and Citizenship for consideration on humanitarian grounds under section 417 of the Migration Act.4 However, on 4 April 2010, the author was advised that the Minister had decided not to intervene in his case. 4.3 On 27 September 2010, the author introduced a second written request for ministerial intervention, based on a “significant change in circumstances”. The author referred to the facts that: (a) after he was baptized, his family threatened to inform the Mourides Brotherhood, which would order him to be killed if he did not return to Islam; (b) when the author attended the police station in Touba in 1994, he was told by a senior police officer that there was nothing the police could do to protect him; (c) if he returned to Senegal, there is no town in which he would be safe, as his family and relatives live in different parts of Senegal (Dakar, Touba, Kaolack and Giorbel) and would find him and inform the Mourides and have him killed; (d) the Mourides Brotherhood has great power and influence in Senegal; (e) the author believes he is the first Christian convert from Touba, and the Mourides want him killed to prevent others from converting; (f) the author is healthy and employable and would fit well into Australian society. None of those claims was considered to raise any new information, or to evidence a change in the author’s circumstances. Accordingly, he was advised on 4 February 2011 that his second request for ministerial intervention had been rejected. 4.4 A third request for ministerial intervention was filed by DIAC in July 2011, asking that his circumstances be reviewed, based on the communication he had submitted to the Committee. The author was invited to provide any relevant information to be considered, but failed to do so. His last application was denied on 22 July 2011, after his circumstances, as well as relevant, up-to-date information, were reviewed. The State party explains that the author remains in community detention. 4.5 The State party submits that the author’s allegations under articles 6, 7 and 18 are inadmissible as the author has not exhausted domestic remedies, as required under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. On 28 October 2009, RRT affirmed the decision of DIAC not to grant the author a protection visa under the Migration Act. The author did not seek judicial review of the RRT decision, and failed to provide any reason for not doing so. The State party adds that the factual basis of the author’s claims before domestic instances is substantially the same as that submitted to the Committee, and that the RRT decision that the author is not entitled to a protection visa addressed the issue at the heart of his present communication before the Committee, namely that he would be at risk of persecution by reason of his religious beliefs if returned to Senegal. The State party also submits that, if successful, judicial review of the RRT decision would result in reconsideration of his claim for a protection visa by RRT, which might ultimately remedy 4 That provision confers a discretionary power on the Minister to intervene in cases in which it is considered by the Minister to be in the public interest to do so. 5