CAT/C/64/D/680/2015 7.8 On 31 March 2015, the Federal Circuit Court dismissed the complainant’s application for judicial review of the Refugee Review Tribunal decision because it had been filed 300 days after the 35-day time limit provided in Australian law. In accordance with the law, the Court considered whether an extension should be provided, referencing the length of the delay, the presence or absence of prejudice to the complainant and the merits of the proposed appeal. The Court concluded that the complainant did not have a satisfactory explanation for the significant delay in lodging an appeal. Furthermore, the Court found that the complainant’s case lacked merit, stating that the applicant had failed to satisfy the Court that his application had any prospects of success such that it would be in the interests of justice to extend the time limit. In the light of this, the Court found that any prejudice suffered by the complainant in not allowing the appeal would be minimal. 7.9 The State party submits that the complainant’s claim that internal relocation in Pakistan is not an option for him, since the Government of Pakistan has demonstrated an inability to prevent gross human rights violations by the Taliban, was considered by the Tribunal and was not accepted. The State party acknowledges that article 3 (2) of the Convention requires all relevant considerations to be taken into account when determining whether article 3 (1) is engaged, including the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the existence of a general risk of violence does not constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon return, and the complainant has not established the existence of additional grounds to show that he is at a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture if returned to Pakistan. 7.10 The State party notes that the complainant included a new claim in his submissions to the Committee, namely that he was associated with the Awami National Party as a peace committee member. The late inclusion of this claim, the fact that the complainant has previously provided contradictory evidence and that it is inconsistent with country information, and the lack of personal evidence provided by the complainant, cumulatively raise doubts as to the veracity of this claim. During the Refugee Review Tribunal hearings, the complainant stated that he did not have any connection with any political party, and that the only interest he had was his shop, which he had run until 2008. Furthermore, this claim is inconsistent with country information, because the Awami National Party and the peace committee are two separate entities. Even if it is assumed that a typographical error has been made and that the complainant is claiming that he has an association with the Awami National Party, in addition to being a peace committee member, it is implausible that the complainant would not have raised this claim earlier if he feared harm for this reason. Peace committee members are at the forefront of clashes with the Taliban in rural areas and have been reported to be the targets of terrorist attacks throughout 2012 in the complainant’s home region, while the complainant was having his protection claims assessed in Australia. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the complainant would have raised these claims on departure from Pakistan if he feared harm because of his association with the Awami National Party or as a peace committee member. Even if it were to be assumed that the complainant did have a plausible reason for not raising this claim earlier, the State party submits that the evidence the complainant has provided to date is not sufficient to substantiate his claim that he is a member of the Awami National Party or of the peace committee. 7.11 Lastly, the State party notes that the complainant submitted a letter from the New South Wales Refugee Health Service in support of his claim that he had been attacked by the Taliban in May 2008. This claim has already been accepted by the Refugee Review Tribunal, which concluded that this attack did not give rise to a real risk of the author being tortured if returned to Pakistan. The letter does not give rise to any further claims or enhanced risk of harm as a result of the attack in 2008, and only substantiates the injuries that had been inflicted, which have already been accepted and considered in the Australian refugee status determination and complementary protection processes. Therefore, this information does not provide sufficient evidence that the complainant would be personally at risk of torture or treatment that would be considered torture under article 1 of the Convention. 6