CAT/C/71/D/802/2017 asylum there. The Tribunal also considered that given the complainant’s limited involvement in Falun Gong in Australia, and her likely behaviour upon return to China, it was improbable that she would be of adverse interest to the authorities upon return to China. Although the State party considers that there may be a risk of harm, including torture, for Falun Gong practitioners in China, it determined that the complainant was not a genuine Falun Gong practitioner. The complainant has not demonstrated that, as a result of the temporary and inadvertent publication of her name and claims for protection in the unredacted decision of the Federal Court, she faced a real, personal and foreseeable risk of torture by the authorities of the Government of China. Moreover, the complainant has not identified any error of fact or law in the decisions of the national authorities. For the above-mentioned reasons, the State party considers that the communication lacks merit. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 In her comments dated 24 October 2018, the complainant reiterates her prior arguments, and maintains that the disclosure of her name and claim for protection falls squarely within the scope of the Convention, because it increased the risk that she would be tortured upon return to China. This negligent, dangerous and illegal act demonstrates that the procedures before the national authorities were hardly robust, as the State party claims they were. Contrary to the State party’s assertion, the complainant has provided substantial grounds for the Committee to believe that she would be tortured if she were returned to China. Beginning with surveillance, the process of persecution would escalate and would result in the complainant’s torture or death. Reports indicate that Falun Gong practitioners have been tortured in China. 4 The complainant was truthful in her statements to the State party’s authorities regarding her practice of Falun Gong. 5.2 The national authorities erred in their understanding of the practices of the Government of China with regard to exit control. The complainant was targeted by local public security officers, and there is no available information regarding the extent to which different branches of the Government of China communicate with each other. Thus, it is not clear whether the complainant’s problems in Jilin would have caused the national authorities in China to prevent her from exiting the country. Moreover, in the past, the Government of China has actively sought to exile dissidents. The complainant cites the following passage of a report issued by Human Rights Watch in 1995: “Prominent among those listed are a number of former political prisoners who, in response to sustained diplomatic pressure from the United States government over the question of China’s Most Favored Nation (MFN) status, were finally granted passports or exit permits and allowed to leave China for temporary study or medical purposes in the U.S. Prior to August 1991, when the majority of the banning orders were issued, China, for the most part, had prevented such people or their relatives from leaving the country. The banning orders, coming as public debate in the United States over China’s MFN status was increasing, indicated a policy shift that enabled the Chinese government to achieve two objectives at once. The authorities allowed dissidents to leave, thereby appearing to appease human rights critics in the U.S., while at the same time, they secretly pursued a policy of sending former political prisoners and other dissidents into involuntary exile abroad.”5 In the light of this passage, the fact that the complainant was able to lawfully leave China does not undermine her assertion that she was arrested for practising Falun Gong. 5.3 The State party draws attention to the fact that the complainant, when asked by the national authorities why she had been targeted in 2008, did not know why. However, the complainant cannot be expected to understand the motivations of the Public Security Bureau in China. The State party also argues that the complainant does not have a high public profile. 4 5 6 The complainant cites the following links: http://en.minghui.org/html/articles/2017/6/16/164291.html; and www.thesun.co.uk/news/1799086/former-prisoners-reveal-horrific-torture-taking-place-inchinese-prisons/. Human Rights Watch, “China – enforced exile of dissidents: government ‘re-entry blacklist’ revealed”, 1 January 1995. GE.21-11876