CAT/C/51/D/434/2010 unregistered churches by 2025 and persecution, detention and harassment of different religious groups in China. 5.11 In relation to the State party’s submission that the removal of the complainants from Australia would not in itself constitute inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as the State party immigration authorities routinely conduct assessments on individuals’ fitness for travel prior to removing them, the complainants note that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship has disregarded the medical reports of 26 June and 28 June 2013 by an expert clinician in psychiatry, Dr. M. R., in which it was noted that due to the deterioration in the complainant’s mental health and his wife’s mental health, they were not fit to travel, nor to report to the Department. It is stressed that the complainants are suffering from severe psychiatric disorders, which require the care of a treating psychiatrist and significant medication and which have deteriorated over time primarily because of the continual denial of the Department to grant them protection. 5.12 The complainants note that their mental status has rendered them incapable of working whilst they have been in the State party. Furthermore, even if there were a possibility that they would not suffer persecution upon return to China, they would not be able to relocate to a safe place in China and to receive social resources, due to household registration and the policy on allocation of resources in China. In addition, the complainants submit that it is also inhuman to remove them from the State party because their son and grandchildren reside in Australia. 5.13 As regards the State party’s argument that the main complainant was issued with a passport and that he and his wife left China in June 2004 without any difficulties or hindrance, the complainants, by referring to the UNHCR procedures and criteria for determining refugee status under Convention on the Status of Refugees, maintain that the existence of a passport may not serve as an indication of the absence of fear. In this connection, the complainants believe that, in light of the responses of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship to all the new information presented by the main complainant with each subsequent request for ministerial intervention, the Department has adopted a negative approach towards him and would never adopt a positive decision in relation to him. 5.14 The complainants further express the criticism that the State party authorities did not consider the statements of support from friends and family concerning the complainant’s involvement with the Quiets Church and his persecution in China as constituting credible evidence. 5.15 Further, as concerns the court summons and detention notice provided by the complainant and the subsequent assessment by the national authorities that these documents lacked any concrete details to support the main complainant’s claim, the complainants note that the summons and detention warrant submitted to the national authorities on 5 August 2010 were only issued on 18 January 2010 and 1 February 2010 and that therefore they did not exist at the time of the earlier hearings. They were submitted within the ministerial intervention proceedings as evidence of anticipated future persecution, not of previous detention. 5.16 As to the State party’s submission that the main complainant’s claim for a protection visa were considered properly and were subject to a “robust process of merits and judicial review”, the complainants firstly point out that this process involved only two opportunities to provide evidence of claims of persecution in their country of origin and their claims of future risk in that country. The first opportunity was at an interview held at the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, while the second opportunity was at a hearing before a member of the the Refugee Review Tribunal. They further note that thereafter a court reviewed the decision that had been adopted in order to determine if an error of law had 13