CAT/C/49/D/416/2010 4.8 As to the merits of the case, the State party reiterates that there are no substantial grounds to believe that the complainant will be in danger of being subjected to torture by the Chinese authorities, that his claims for protection in Australia have been properly determined according to the Australian law, that he does not disclose any information that has not already been considered in the domestic proceedings and that he had benefited from the “robust process of merits and judicial review” to ensure that any error made by an initial decision maker had been corrected. It further maintains that the documents provided by the complainant, including witness affidavits, personal statements and medical reports, although not provided in relation to the Protection Visa application, had been duly considered by the immigration department during the consideration of the ministerial intervention requests. It maintains that there is little credible evidence provided by the complainant to establish that there is a personal and present risk of torture upon his return and reiterates that his claims under article 3 of the Convention should be dismissed for lack of merits. The complainants’ comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 6 February 2012, the complainant submitted that the State party’s submission fails to acknowledge the impact of the complainant’s claim that he has been the victim of the negligence, incompetence or fraud of a migration agent and as a result the Government’s claim that “the domestic legal system in Australia offers a robust process of merits and judicial review” is rendered largely irrelevant in his case. He maintains that as a result of the actions of his migration agent he was unable to participate fully in the domestic legal system in order to have his protection claims fully considered. Further, he maintains that new evidence and information submitted by him, which had been omitted by his migration agent at an earlier stage, had been summarily dismissed by the Government as lacking in credibility. He also maintains that he has not been interviewed in person by an agent of the Government with responsibility for assessing his protection claims at any stage of the proceedings. 5.2 The complainant challenges the State party’s submission that he failed to establish a prima facie case that he faces a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture upon deportation, and maintains that he submitted, with the last ministerial intervention request, the following: eye witness statements from family members and Falun Gong practitioners in China attesting to his practice, arrest, detention and torture by the police;5 medical evidence supporting the consistency of the complainant’s scar marks with the claimed torture, including burn marks and injuries sustained from a combination of shackling, burns and beatings with an electric baton;6 psychiatric evidence supporting diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder, consistent with the claimed torture; and a further detailed statement from the complainant on the persecution and torture experienced by him in China, including an explanation for his delayed escape. 5 6 The complainant had submitted: a witness statement from his mother, who witnessed his arrest on 15 August 2001 and attests to his detention for 15 days, as well as to two further visits of the police during which they conducted searches of the house and were seeking to locate him; a witness statement from Falun Gong practitioners who were present when he went to the local police station to petition for the release of another Falun Gong practitioner; a witness statement attesting to his arrest in 2001; witness statements from individuals who shared a Falun Gong practice with him in 1995/96; and a statement from the Falun Gong practitioner who organized the payment of bribes to secure his release from detention. The complainant submitted a medical certificate issued by Dr. Fleri of International Health and Medical Services, dated 1 February 2010. 7