CAT/C/49/D/416/2010 ministerial intervention requests, each of which was assessed as not meeting the Ministerial Guidelines for referral to the Minister.2 4.5 The State party maintains that it is the responsibility of the complainant to establish a prima facie case for admissibility, and that in the present case he had failed to substantiate that there is a foreseeable, real and personal risk that he would be subjected to torture by the Chinese authorities if returned to China. It recalls that the Refugee Review Tribunal held that the complainant’s claims were not credible, that the Tribunal was not satisfied that the complainant was a Falun Gong practitioner, because his claims lacked important details, namely, he gave few details about the nature of his practice and did not display knowledge of the philosophy of Falun Gong beyond what was publicly available. Further, the Tribunal did not accept that the author had been monitored, detained or mistreated by the Chinese authorities. The Tribunal reached those conclusions due to the lack of detail in the initial claim and “without the opportunity to test the claims at a hearing, it was not prepared to accept the author’s claims”. The State party submits that the Refugee Review Tribunal “was not satisfied that the author was a person to whom Australia had protection obligations under the Refugee Convention” and that, on appeal, the Federal Magistrates Court was not persuaded that the applicant had not attended the Tribunal hearing “as a result of any fraud or error by his migration agent”. 4.6 The State party further submits that the complainant had provided information regarding details of past ill-treatment in the course of the domestic proceedings and ministerial intervention requests, as well as documents, and that this information had been assessed by the domestic procedures. It maintains that the domestic legal system in Australia offers a “robust process of merits and judicial review” to ensure that any error made by an initial decision maker can be corrected. It recalls that the author appealed to the Refugee Review Tribunal, the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court of Australia and no error had been identified. 4.7 The State party submits that apart from allegations of past ill-treatment the complainant does not specify what treatment he might suffer if returned to China, but that he had made “limited claims” in relation to possible treatment he might face.3 He had further alleged that his family was targeted by the authorities due to his Falun Gong practice, but in another statement he indicated that his family was doing well. The State party submits further that a statement provided by the complainant’s mother on 17 February 2010 contains only information regarding the period when he was in China, but does not provide any information on “interaction with the Chinese authorities” since his departure. 4 The State party maintains that the above statement does not provide any substantial grounds to support the complainant’s allegation that he would be subjected to torture or mistreatment upon his return to China. 2 3 4 6 The State party submits that the Migration Act “confers discretionary, non-delegable and noncompellable powers upon the Minister to intervene in cases if it is considered by the Minister to be in the public interest to do so”. The Minister is authorized “to substitute a decision of the RRT [Refugee Review Tribunal] with a decision more favourable to the applicant”, and the latter has issued guidelines that he will generally consider applications “only in cases that exhibit one or more unique or exceptional circumstance, including where there are circumstances that provide a sound basis for believing that there is a significant threat to a person’s personal security, human rights or human dignity upon return to their country of origin and where there are circumstances that may bring into consideration Australia’s obligations, under treaties”. The State party specifies that in one of the complainant’s personal statements he had stated that if he was sent back to China he would suffer mistreatment which may threaten his life. The complainant’s mother’s statement was submitted to support one of his ministerial intervention requests.