CAT/C/51/D/434/2010 review of this decision before the Refugee Review Tribunal, which upheld the decision on 1 December 2004. They appealed the decision of the Tribunal before the Federal Magistrates Court. On 7 November 2005, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship withdrew from the matter after an examination of the record of the Tribunal decision revealed a probable error of law, namely that the Tribunal had failed to give proper consideration as to whether the complainant would continue to express his purported religious beliefs on return to China. The Federal Magistrates Court made orders setting aside the first decision of the Tribunal and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration. On 2 March 2006, a newly constituted Tribunal reviewed and affirmed the original decision of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. The complainants appealed the second Tribunal decision to the Federal Magistrates Court and subsequently to the full Federal Court. Those appeals were dismissed on 13 September 2006 and 21 February 2007 respectively. 4.4 The complainants have also unsuccessfully sought ministerial intervention eight times between 2007 and 2011.5 Following examination of the main complainant’s initial request, the Minister decided not to intervene. Seven subsequent requests for ministerial intervention were fully considered and rejected due to a lack of new evidence sufficient to meet the guidelines for ministerial consideration and because the information submitted by the complainant did not provide a sound basis for believing that there was a significant threat to his or his family members’ personal security, human rights or human dignity upon their return to China. 4.5 Following receipt of the present communication, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship initiated a further request for ministerial intervention on 30 November 2010, with the specific purpose of considering the new information in the communication which had not been previously considered by the State party authorities, namely the complainant’s allegations regarding his wife’s forced abortion and forced insertion of an IUD. On 22 February 2011, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship decided that this new information did not engage Australia’s non-refoulement obligations, including under the Convention. The complainant applied to the High Court on 10 July 2012 for judicial review of the Minister’s decision not to intervene, but he discontinued this proceeding on 3 October 2012. 4.6 The State party further notes that the claims of the complainants in relation to the Convention are not clear and they have not provided a clear statement of allegations against the articles of the Convention. The State party has therefore had to make assumptions about the nature of their allegations and addresses their submission as primarily an allegation of violation of articles 3 and 16 of the Convention. It assumes that under article 3 of the Convention, the complainants claim that, should they be returned to China, the main complainant would face persecution from the Chinese authorities on account of his Christianity and support for the Quiets Church. They appear to allege this conduct would amount to torture. They also appear to claim that because of the complainant’s wife’s previous alleged forced termination of pregnancy and IUD implantation, should they be returned to China, she might be subjected to treatment amounting to torture. There are no specific allegations regarding the complainant’s son. Furthermore, under article 16 of the Convention, the complainants claim that deterioration in the main complainant’s mental health and his wife’s general health has rendered both unfit to travel. The State party assumes that the complainants allege that their removal from the State party would amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of article 16 of the Convention. 5 Requests made under section 417 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) on 26 March 2007, 21 May 2008, 4 February 2009, 20 October 2009 and 5 August 2010 and under Section 48B on 21 May 2008, 4 February 2009 and 5 August 2010. 5