CAT/C/64/D/680/2015 claiming protection suggested that the complainant did not possess a well-founded fear of persecution as claimed. 7.5 The Refugee Review Tribunal accepted that the complainant might have owned a music shop in Derai, and as a result had attracted the attention of the Taliban. The Tribunal also accepted that the complainant had been severely assaulted by the Taliban in May 2008 and had fled to Karachi to join a ship through his employment with the shipping company. However, the Tribunal noted that there were multiple inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence regarding his movements when he returned to Pakistan, sometime in 2009, and it did not accept that he had been requested to join the Taliban, or that he had attracted the Taliban’s attention because of a loan to singers or musicians. 3 The Tribunal did not accept that the complainant had received subsequent threats from the Taliban and that his house had been attacked in December 2009 and he himself had been shot in the stomach. In particular, the Tribunal noted that the medical evidence that had been adduced stated that the complainant had lower back pain and a history of physical assault, but did not identify a physical ailment otherwise consistent with a shooting. 7.6 The Refugee Review Tribunal rejected the complainant’s claim that he had been or would be targeted due to being “open-minded”, drinking alcohol4 or having mental health issues that required ongoing treatment.5 The Tribunal identified inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence regarding his movements when he returned to Pakistan, sometime in 2011. Due to these inconsistencies and a lack of credible evidence, the Tribunal did not accept that the complainant had been subject to a kidnapping attempt or that the complainant’s brother-in-law had been killed because of him.6 Rather, the Tribunal found that the complainant had returned to the Swat Valley a number of times since 2008, between contracts to work for the shipping company, and had not been targeted by the Taliban for any reason. The Tribunal noted that that was consistent with the country information available, which indicated that the situation in Swat had changed since 2008, and the authorities appeared to control the valley. The Tribunal found that it would be practicable for the complainant to relocate to another part of Pakistan if he continued to have a subjective fear of returning to the Swat Valley, noting that he had shown himself to be flexible and capable. As such, the Tribunal concluded that the complainant was not owed protection in connection with its obligations under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. The Tribunal also ruled that the complainant was not owed protection under the State’s complementary protection obligations. 7.7 On 2 May 2013, the complainant made a request for ministerial intervention under sections 417 and 48B of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Under these powers, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection can intervene in individual cases if the Minister thinks it is in the public interest to do so. The decision maker assessed that the complainant’s request contained no information indicating that the complainant had an enhanced chance of making a successful protection visa application. On 13 June 2013, the decision maker determined that the complainant’s claims did not meet the criteria for ministerial intervention. 3 4 5 6 The complainant told the Tribunal that, after the Taliban had destroyed his music store, he had lent 45,000 Pakistan rupees to some singers in Karachi to buy instruments, and after this the Taliban had contacted him and told him that he had not learned his lesson. The complainant told the Tribunal that one of the reasons he was targeted by the Taliban was because he drank alcohol and did “other stuff” that the Taliban considered to be against the rules of Islam. The complainant provided a letter from a psychologist that stated that he appeared to be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and depressive disorder. However, since the letter did not contain any information about the complainant’s diagnosis or the necessity of any further sessions with the psychologist, and no other medical evidence was provided with regard to his mental health, the Tribunal did not accept this claim of mental health issues or that the complainant’s life would be endangered as a result of not receiving adequate treatment if he returned to Pakistan. During his interview with the Tribunal, the complainant said that on 14 April 2011 the Taliban had shot and killed his brother-in-law because he had always supported the complainant and was helping the Government, and that in June 2011 the Taliban had tried to kidnap the complainant but that he had been able to escape. No documents supporting these events were submitted to the Tribunal. 5