CCPR/C/112/D/2053/2011 law is in place and that the police force and system of justice are reasonably effective and impartial. Accordingly, the State party is of the view that the author failed to sufficiently substantiate, for the purposes of admissibility, his claim that he would not be offered adequate State protection in Senegal against threats from the Mourides Brotherhood or his family. 4.15 The State party submits that its non-refoulement obligations do not extend to potential breaches of article 18 of the Covenant. Accordingly, it invites the Committee to declare that part of the communication inadmissible ratione materiae with the Covenant. 4.16 On the merits, the State party submits that the facts alleged by the author in relation to articles 6 and 7 do not meet the threshold requirement of a risk of irreparable harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his return to Senegal. 8 The State party reiterates that there are no substantial grounds for believing that the author will face torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or arbitrary deprivation of life upon his return to Senegal. The author has adequate and effective State protection available to him in Senegal and consequently, it is neither necessary nor foreseeable that he would suffer irreparable harm if he was to be returned there. There is no evidence that violence against Christians is tolerated or sanctioned in any way, nor are there reports of societal violence, harassment or discrimination based on religious affiliation, belief or practice. Christian and Muslim leaders in the country maintain a public dialogue to help diffuse social crises and promote dialogue, Senegalese law prohibits all forms of discrimination and provides for freedom of religion, and law and order is effectively maintained by the police forces throughout the country. 4.17 Regarding article 18, the State party submits that the author’s claim is devoid of merit, as Senegal is a secular State, well-known for its religious tolerance. There is no evidence that the author has attempted to relocate to any part of Senegal other than Touba or Kaolack to avoid harm from his family. Therefore, according to the State party, there is no risk that the author would face a breach of his rights under article 18 as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his return to Senegal. Author’s comments on the State party’s submission 5.1 On 1 March 2012, the author submitted his comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and merits. In addition to the facts presented in his initial submission, he notes that he has exhausted domestic remedies. A judicial review from the RRT decision would only have been available to him if he had a proper ground for appeal to the Federal Magistrates Court. No such ground was available to him. Section 474 of the Migration Act of 1958 prohibits appeals from RRT. The High Court of Australia, in its decision Plaintiff S157/2002 v. Commonwealth of Australia (2003), held that RRT decisions affected by jurisdictional error fall outside the scope of section 474 of the Migration Act. Therefore, only those decisions which contain a jurisdictional error can be appealed before the Federal Magistrates Court. In addition to that strict legal threshold for permissible appeals, it is incumbent on the appellant, under section 486 (e) and (i) of the Migration Act, to certify in writing that there are reasonable prospects of success for the appeal. The author notes that a careful review of the RRT decision by his legal counsel revealed that there was no jurisdictional error in the decision of 28 October 2009. As a result, no appeal to the Federal Magistrates Court was available to him. 8 8 The State party refers to communication No. 469/1991, Ng v. Canada, Views adopted on 5 November 1993, para. 6.2.