CAT/C/58/D/609/2014 5.3 The complainant also alleged that the procedure before the Federal Circuit Court and the Federal Court of Australia was flawed because he was not represented by a legal counsel and because the courts failed to take into account his mental state and to verify whether he was mentally fit to represent himself. 5.4 In addition to the information contained in his initial submission to the Committee, the complainant submitted several new documents, including two invitations dated 2002 and 2005 to the complainant’s family to attend ceremonies organized by LTTE to commemorate war heroes, with the name of his second brother on it; a photograph of the complainant’s eldest brother — who he alleged was an LTTE intelligence officer — with his commanding officer, taken in 2000; and an Edmund Rice Centre report published on 5 May 2015 referring to two returnees who had been subjected to torture upon their return to Sri Lanka after the State party had rejected their asylum applications. State party’s additional observations on admissibility and the merits 6.1 On 10 November 2015, the State party submitted additional observations and reiterated its position on the inadmissibility of the complaint and its lack of merit. 6.2 Addressing the complainant’s allegation about the unfairness of the independent merits review, the State party submitted that this claim was reviewed by the Federal Circuit Court, which found nothing inaccurate or incorrect in the reviewer’s decision and which stated that credibility findings were “a matter par excellence” for the court. Concerning the allegation about the failure of the reviewer to take into account the complainant’s psychological report and his post-traumatic stress disorder, the State party noted that the psychosocial report was not considered by the reviewer to be a medical assessment and that the complainant did not provided any medical evidence in support of his claim that he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Regarding the complainant’s claim about the reviewer’s error in focussing on inconsistencies which he considered unimportant, the State party observed that the reviewer was conscious of the need to treat discrepancies about peripheral details with caution, but did not consider the inconsistencies in the complainant’s story to be peripheral. The complainant was given the chance to comment on all the inconsistencies that the reviewer pointed out, however his answers were not found to be satisfactory. 6.3 As for the allegation concerning unfair proceedings before the Federal Circuit Court and the Federal Court of Australia owing to the absence of legal counsel to represent him, the State party submitted that the complainant was represented by an NGO and that he did not justify his failure to contact legal representatives as was suggested by the Federal Circuit Court six months prior to the hearing. In respect of the foregoing and taking into account that the complainant’s claims were considered by the independent merits review and during the post-review protection claim assessment process, the State party submits that the complainant’s allegation regarding the lack of legal representation should be rejected. Concerning the allegation that the courts ignored his mental state, the State party submitted that the complainant did not present any medical evidence suggesting that he had a mental health condition that deprived him of a fair opportunity to present his case. 6.4 Regarding the additional documents submitted to the Committee, the State party observed that the complainant did not provide any explanation as to why they were not provided to the authorities at an earlier stage of the protection claim process, since they are dated 2000, 2002 and 2005. The State party also noted that the new evidence indicating that the complainant’s brother was an LTTE member contradicts the statement that he gave in 2011 to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and reiterated during the review process that his brother was shot in 2001 on suspicion of supporting LTTE, but that, in fact, he had no involvement with LTTE. In the State party’s view, such inconsistency undermines the credibility of the complainant’s evidence. The State party further observed 5