CAT/C/51/D/434/2010 that there was any reason to believe that there was a real risk that the complainant would experience serious harm amounting to persecution if returned to China.4 2.4 The main complainant submits that he continues to practise his faith in Australia. He also submits that his health has deteriorated during the last six years and he has been diagnosed with “major affective disorder, depressive type which amounted to dysmantia” due to his fear of being removed to China. He adds that he also suffers post-traumatic stress disorder, including insomnia, agitation and nightmares relating to his experience of political detention and torture when he was in China. 2.5 The complainant further notes that they should not be expelled because his wife is unfit to travel following a surgical intervention in February 2010 to remove an intrauterine device (IUD), which had been forcibly inserted in China and that he was also found by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship to be unfit to travel on psychiatric grounds. 2.6 The main complainant submitted numerous letters of support of his claims from his family and friends. The complaint 3.1 The complainants claim that the main complainant will be detained and tortured if returned to China. The existence of the summons demonstrates that he is a person of interest to the Chinese authorities. Given that the summons has been issued because of his religious activities, he would not be able to practise his religion freely. 3.2 The main complainant and his wife further claim that they are unfit to travel due to the main complainant’s deteriorated psychological state of health and his wife’s general state of health. State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 On 15 January 2013, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and merits of the complaint. The State party submits that the allegations in relation to article 3 of the Convention with respect to the complainant’s wife are inadmissible and that the allegations in relation to article 16 of the Convention concerning the main complainant and his wife are also inadmissible. As no allegations are made in relation to the complainant’s son, the State party submits that the communication in respect of him is manifestly unfounded and therefore inadmissible. In the alternative, it further submits that all of the complainants’ claims should be dismissed as without merit. 4.2 The State party further briefly reiterates the facts of the present case as follows. The complainants are nationals of China. Prior to their arrival in Australia, the complainants claim that they were residents of Longtian, Fujian Province where the main complainant ran a small store. The main complainant claims to have been a practising member of the Quiets Church and to have provided the congregation access to the basement of his store. He alleges that he also participated in Church services. He claims that he was persecuted for his affiliation with the Church, including being sent to a “study class” and that he was subject to both physical and mental abuse by the Chinese authorities, which amounted to torture. 4.3 The complainant’s son arrived in Australia on 18 February 2004 on a study visa. The complainant and his wife left China for Australia, arriving on 6 June 2004. He applied for a protection visa on 23 June 2004, including for his wife and son. His application was refused by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. The complainants sought a 4 4 Decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal, 2 November 2004.