CAT/C/67/D/723/2015 of Sinhalese fishermen. The decision maker indicated that the complainant had failed to mention the Sinhalese fishermen incident, despite the fact that it was supposedly the most recent event prior to his departure from Sri Lanka, and that he had been asked on two separate occasions if he had any reason for leaving Sri Lanka other than the grease man incident. Having also considered the available country information, the Department concluded that there were no reasons for the authorities of Sri Lanka to believe that the complainant had any connections with the Tamil Tigers and that there were no reasons to consider that ethnic Tamils were subject at the time of the decision to a real chance of persecution by the authorities of Sri Lanka on account of their ethnicity alone. In the light of those considerations, the Department was not convinced that the complainant would be at general or personal risk of harm if he were returned to Sri Lanka. 4.4 The State party submits that, on appeal, the Refugee Review Tribunal did not find most of the complainant’s statements credible, in particular as to what he had experienced in Sri Lanka and as to the reasons for his departure from the country in June 2012. This includes his accounts relating to the grease man incident.4 The Tribunal affirmed the conclusions reached by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection regarding other aspects of the complainant’s claims. With regard to the procedure before the Federal Circuit Court, the State party submits that the Court considered the complainant’s assertion regarding his Tamil ethnicity and his newly submitted claim that, as a failed asylum seeker who had departed from Sri Lanka illegally, he would be harmed upon his return. The Federal Circuit Court dismissed his application for judicial review, however, and the complainant’s claim was further rejected by the Federal Court of Australia and by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. 4.5 The State party also submits that several of the complainant’s claims that have been brought before the Committee had not been raised before the domestic authorities. In particular, the complainant alleges that he witnessed war crimes committed by the Sri Lanka Army and that, upon return to Sri Lanka, he would face serious harm and pressure not to offer his testimony in the event of a United Nations-led investigation being launched. In that regard, the State party submits that, if the complainant had witnessed war crimes, it would be implausible that, upon his arrival in Australia, he would not have raised his fear of harm by the Sri Lanka Army. It is also implausible that the complainant resided in Sri Lanka for another three years after witnessing the incident concerned without being identified or targeted by the Army. Furthermore, there is minimal information or evidence supporting the complainant’s claim. In addition, the State party notes that a national election was held in Sri Lanka on 17 August 2015, resulting in an alliance led by the United National Party coming into power and the Tamil National Alliance winning a number of seats. In this context, the State party considers it particularly unlikely that the complainant would be at risk of harm in Sri Lanka for having been a witness to the alleged commission of war crimes by the Army, which occurred while the previous Government was in power. 4.6 Regarding the complainant’s assertion that there is no safe place for him in Sri Lanka, the State party submits that the complainant has not raised any credible claims to indicate that he is at risk of being harmed or tortured by the authorities of Sri Lanka in his home region or any other region. In claiming that there is no safe place for him in Sri Lanka, the complainant made references to new section 5J (1) of the Migration Act 1958 and the decision of the High Court of Australia in SZATV v. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.5 In this respect, the State party observes that the competence of the Committee under the Optional Protocol is to consider communications relating to the situation or circumstances of a particular complainant or a particular group of complainants. 6 Furthermore, the State party argues that, even though it acknowledges that section 5J (1) of the Migration Act removes the test for reasonableness in the context of internal relocation, as was set out by the High Court in the SZATV case, the amended law remains consistent with the international obligations of Australia under the Convention relating to the Status of 4 5 6 4 During his hearing, the complainant referred on one occasion to the Sri Lanka Navy as having been involved in the grease man incident, whereas on other occasions he referred to the Sri Lanka Army, despite affirming that he could differentiate between the two institutions. 233 CLR 18, case No. S62/2007, 30 August 2007. See Khan v. Canada (CAT/C/13/D/15/1994).