CAT/C/61/D/725/2016 risk of torture, or that this would amount to treatment that would be considered torture under article 1 of the Convention. Complainant’s comments on the State party observations 5.1 On 5 December 2016, the complainant submitted comments on the State party’s observations. He objects to the State party’s request to lift the interim measures request. He contends that all evidence indicates that he is a survivor of sexual torture and he made efforts to disclose this during later stages of his protection claims assessment and in his second ministerial appeal. He further challenges the State party’s conclusions that he is not at real and foreseeable risk if returned to Sri Lanka, claiming they are based on findings of a protection assessment process that do not take into adequate consideration his psychological state (post-traumatic stress disorder and severe depression). He further comments on the issues of his disclosures of torture, his credibility, interpreter variations and difficulties and the engagement of the State party obligations of non-refoulement. 5.2 He claims that his mental health conditions arising from his experience of torture were not adequately taken into account in terms of assessing his credibility. As a result, his initial disclosure of torture was incorrectly viewed as lacking in credibility. Psychological evidence from counselling and psychiatrist reports support the view that he did suffer torture, including sexual torture. Those torture methods were commonly used by the Criminal Investigation Department. 5.3 The complainant first disclosed his experience of torture, including sexual torture, at the hearing of the Refugee Review Tribunal, as reported in its decision of 1 August 2013. 21 The fact that he did not disclose that experience in his initial claim or in his initial interview was then cited by the State party as a reason to doubt his credibility. However, most asylum seekers found it difficult to disclose torture. The complainant refers to a study that found that those with a history of sexual violence reported more difficulties in disclosing personal information during interviews and were more likely to dissociate during those interviews, and scored significantly higher on measures of post-traumatic stress symptoms and shame than those with a history of non-sexual violence. The study also describes how cultural factors also play a part in non-disclosure.22 The complainant’s gender and culture, along with the psychological impact of torture, including sexual torture, led thus to non-disclosure. The claim that the Criminal Investigation Department continuously tortured the complainant while interrogating him about the incident at the university was apparently not considered by the Tribunal and the State party treats it as another inconsistency. The complainant’s legal representative at the Tribunal hearing also did not press for the claim of torture to be considered. 5.4 Following the rejection of his appeal to the Refugee Review Tribunal, the complainant sought counselling and, on 3 September 2013, began seeing a counsellor at Companion House Assisting Survivors of Torture and Trauma. According to the social worker and the director of that organization, he first reported some details of his past history on 1 October 2013. 23 The report describes how the complainant said there were some things he could not talk about and that he was unable to talk about it. He did not disclose details of his experience of torture again until 9 June 2015. The complainant was in a highly distressed state during his recounting of the torture. After the disclosure, his psychological state deteriorated very rapidly and he had to be admitted the same day to 21 22 23 The Refugee Review Tribunal decision of 1 August 2013 is part of the case file and shows that the complainant claimed that he had been questioned and harassed by the Criminal Investigation Department and police in relation to the damage at the university. It does not show that he had disclosed a specific torture experience, either physical or sexual in nature, at that stage of the proceedings. See study by Bogner, Herlihy and Brewin (2007), pp. 75 and 79. Available from http://csel.org.uk/assets/images/resources/bogner-herlihy-brewin-2007-bjpsych/bogner-bjpsychdisclosure-article.pdf. Counselling summary report of 6 November 2015 is part of the case file. According to the report, the complainant had 55 sessions, each one lasting approximately one hour, between 10 September 2013 and 6 November 2015. 9