CAT/C/64/D/680/2015 litigation would be the only protection they could have against their immediate removal. On 29 October 2015, a single judge of the High Court dismissed the application, and the complainant planned to appeal the dismissal to a Full Court. He further asserted that suspending the communication might open a window for the Department of Immigration to remove him, in an attempt to avoid a clear abrogation of the interim measures request. Therefore, he asked the Committee not to suspend the communication, unless the State party was willing to offer assurances that the interim measures would be respected. 2 State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 7.1 In a note verbale of 20 November 2015, the State party submitted that the complainant’s allegations were inadmissible on the ground that his claims were manifestly unfounded pursuant to rule 113 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure, due to the failure of the complainant to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of his complaint. If the Committee considers the complainant’s claims to be admissible, the State party submits that they are also without merit. 7.2 The State party notes that the complainant’s claims have been thoroughly considered by a series of domestic decision makers, including during the Refugee Status Assessment and by the Refugee Review Tribunal, and have been subject to judicial review by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The claims were considered through robust domestic processes and determined not to be credible and not to engage the Government’s nonrefoulement obligations. In particular, the claims have been assessed under the complementary protection provisions contained in subparagraph 36 (2) (aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), which reflects the Government’s non-refoulement obligations under the Convention. 7.3 The State party submits that, with the exception of the new claim that he is associated with the Awami National Party as a peace committee member, the complainant has not provided any relevant new evidence in his complaint to the Committee that has not been considered through the robust and comprehensive domestic administrative and judicial processes mentioned. The State party refers to the Committee’s statement in general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22 that, as it is not an appellate or judicial body, it gives considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by organs of a State party. The State party requests that the Committee accept that the Government of Australia has 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 acknowledges that complete accuracy is seldom to be expected by victims of torture. For example, in reviewing the merits of the decision not to grant the complainant a protection visa, the Refugee Review Tribunal adopted a reasonable approach in the finding of credibility in relation to flaws and inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony. 7.4 The State party notes that the complainant’s claims have been considered during the following domestic processes: (a) a protection visa application; (b) an independent merits review by the Refugee Review Tribunal; (c) a judicial review by the Federal Circuit Court; and (d) a request for ministerial intervention. During the protection visa application process it was established that the complainant had been working for a shipping company since 1999, spending 10 to 11 months of each year at sea, and was not involved in the day-to-day running of his music business during this time. He is therefore unlikely to be at risk of harm on account of the profile associated with that business. Since he spent long periods at sea, it was also implausible that the complainant’s information about local Taliban members would have been of a sufficient or reliable level, or that the army would have used that information in pursuing members of the Taliban. As such, the decision maker did not accept that this, or the related threats and attack on the complainant’s house, had occurred. Furthermore, it was implausible that the complainant had been unable to find a way to disembark the ship on which he was employed and claim asylum in a safe country to which the ship had travelled subsequent to 2009 and before 15 December 2011. This delay in 2 4 On 29 December 2016, the Committee, acting through its Rapporteur on new complaints and interim measures, decided not to suspend consideration of the complaint.