CAT/C/51/D/387/2009 2.13 In December 2005, the complainant’s application for a protection visa was refused by the Australian authorities, who considered that his fear of persecution in Sri Lanka was ill-founded. The complainant applied for a review of this decision to the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT), which was rejected on 18 April 2006. In May 2006, he appealed for judicial review of the RRT decision to the High Court of Australia, which remitted it to RRT on 28 July 2006. On 28 July 2006, he appealed to the Federal Court, but was rejected on 31 July 2007. On 28 August 2007, he again appealed to the High Court of Australia, but withdrew the appeal on 20 November 2007.2 2.14 On 19 December 2007, 28 November 2008, 11 March 2009 and 27 May 2009, the complainant applied for intervention by the Minister for Immigration, but all four applications were deemed as not meeting the guidelines and were not referred to the Minister for consideration. On 5 June 2009, the High Court of Australia decided to adjourn the hearing of the complainant’s case and to stay his removal for two weeks to allow the Minister for Immigration to investigate the matter more thoroughly. At the time of submission of the original complaint to the Committee against Torture (June 2009), the matter was pending a final decision by the Australian Minister for Immigration. As the complainant was almost certain that he would be deported in the two-week time frame, he decided to submit his claim to the Committee. The complaint 3.1 The complainant claims that his forcible deportation to Sri Lanka would amount to a violation of article 3 of the Convention as he fears that he will be tortured by the Sri Lankan authorities because of his past involvement as a local UNP and JSS Transport Board organizer. 3.2 The complainant also claims that, in his current situation, if he is returned to Sri Lanka, he would be killed or harmed by the LTTE for having divulged information on the process by which he illegally obtained a tourist visa to enter Australia. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 12 November 2010, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and the merits. It considers that the complaint should be declared inadmissible as it is manifestly ill-founded. The State party also states that the allegations concerning torture by the LTTE should be declared inadmissible as they are incompatible with the provisions of article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention. In any event, the State party considers the complainant’s claims to be without merit as they have not been supported by any evidence that there is a real risk that he would be subjected to torture upon return to Sri Lanka. 4.2 After outlining the facts of the case, the State party describes the procedure that the complainant followed at the national level, adding that on 22 July 2008, after the Minister for Immigration had indicated that he would not consider exercising ministerial intervention in the complainant’s case, the complainant became unlawfully present in Australia. The complainant was located on 20 November 2008 and subsequently detained in Maribyrnong Immigration Detention Centre. The complainant’s three subsequent requests for ministerial intervention were rejected. On 10 February 2009, the Attorney General’s Office initiated a request to the Minister, under section 417 of the Migration Act, on the basis of a report on the complainant’s mental health by a clinical psychologist of Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture Inc. (a non-government organization also known as Foundation 2 The complainant does not explain why he withdrew the appeal. 5