CAT/C/51/D/387/2009 instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or any other person acting in an official capacity. The Committee has, in its jurisprudence, considered that fear of harm from non-government entities, such as the LTTE, are not covered by article 3 of the Convention.6 4.12 In the alternative, the State party submits that the complainant’s allegations regarding treatment by the LTTE are manifestly ill-founded and marked by inconsistencies that undermine their merit. While the medical examination of the complainant has indicated that he has a scar, there is no evidence that the scar was obtained by torture. Moreover, the complainant did not mention that he had a scar to the psychologist from Foundation House. The complainant also told the psychologist that he had been detained by the LTTE for three days, whereas in his requests for ministerial intervention dated 27 May and 4 June 2009, and in his communication to the Committee, he mentions a period of detention of three weeks. Discrepancies were also noted in his account of those events with the LTTE in the applications for ministerial intervention dated 27 May and 4 June 2009. The State party notes that the complainant was assisted by an accredited interpreter during the hearing before the RRT and therefore cannot invoke language barrier to explain those discrepancies. 4.13 In any event, since the defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) by Sri Lanka forces in May 2009, LTTE’s capacity to exert influence or commit aggressive acts has been curtailed. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 1 April 2011, the complainant provided his comments. He states that he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and a major depressive disorder linked to torture and trauma suffered in Sri Lanka.7 The report of 8 February 2009 by a clinical psychologist of Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture Inc. (Foundation House) states that the source of the complainant’s condition is his belief, which appeared genuinely held, that his life would be imperilled if he were repatriated, and fears for the well-being of his family. This conclusion was corroborated by four other medical reports which link his mental illness with his past experiences.8 5.2 To explain the way his mental health issues played a role in his attempts to make a protection claim in Australia, the complainant refers to the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) process. Despite the fact that he was suffering from PTSD, the complainant was not examined by any mental health professional until he was detained at Maribyrnong Immigration Detention Centre in 2008. None of the above-mentioned reports were available at the time when his protection visa application was considered or when the RRT was considering his case. The medical reports indicate that the complainant has suffered from PTSD symptoms since his arrival in Australia up to the present, which includes the 6 7 8 8 See Committee against Torture, communication No. 138/1999, M.P.S. v. Australia, decision adopted on 30 April 2002, para. 7.4. The formal diagnosis was made on 17 March 2011 by consultant forensic psychiatrist, Dr. John Albert Roberts (annexed to counsel’s comments). See psychological report of 22 December 2008 by Vania Ambesi, Professional Support Services, Maribyrnong Immigration Detention Centre (MIDC); report of 8 February 2009 by clinical psychologist, Guy Coffey, Foundation House; report of 7 May 2009 by Dr. Tony Falconer, International Health and Medical Solutions Pty Ltd (IHMS); report of 25 October 2009 by clinical psychologist, Heyam Haddad, New South Wales (NSW) Service for the Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture and Trauma Survivors (STARTTS); report of 8 February 2011 by clinical psychologist, Pearl Fernandes, STARTTS; and report of 17 March 2011 by consultant forensic psychiatrist, Dr. John Albert Roberts.