CAT/C/71/D/802/2017 complainant had been detained by the Fengman Public Security Bureau from 8 to 15 July 2008 as a result of her involvement in Falun Gong. It was undated and unsigned. Country information indicates that in China, fraudulent documents are widely available, easily obtained and commonly used in visa applications. The Tribunal therefore questioned the complainant about the document. The complainant stated that the document was authentic, but the Tribunal did not find her response to be convincing. The State party considers that it is not the role of national authorities to authenticate such documents. Rather, the onus is on the complainant to establish a prima facie case to support her claims, with verifiable corroborating evidence. 4.9 The complainant also claims that the Refugee Review Tribunal failed to question witnesses who could have attested to the complainant’s participation in Falun Gong activities. However, the Federal Circuit Court evaluated that issue and noted in its decision that according to the transcript of the proceedings, the Tribunal had asked complainant’s counsel about the oral testimony that counsel had sought to offer. In response, counsel had confirmed that the witnesses’ oral testimony would not depart from their written statements. The Circuit Court also noted that the complainant had had a fair opportunity to advance her claims, and that the Tribunal had observed several inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements. 4.10 The Federal Court of Australia considered that the Tribunal had given genuine consideration to the complainant’s request to hear oral testimony from the witnesses, and that the Tribunal’s decision was not unreasonable as a matter of law. The complainant filed four requests for ministerial intervention, on 19 January, 12 February, 10 March and 8 May 2017. Those requests were denied on the ground that the complainant had not met the requirements for ministerial intervention. In her request dated 12 February 2017, the complainant raised several claims that she did not repeat in her communication to the Committee. For example, she claimed that on 3 January 2017, two policemen, accompanied by members of the “local residential committee” had come to her mother’s house. The complainant claimed that these individuals had stated that they knew that the complainant had applied for asylum, and that she was practising Falun Gong in Australia. The individuals characterized this as treason and as a subversion of State power. They asked the complainant’s mother to request the complainant to return to China for an investigation into the matter. They stated that if the complainant did not return to China, they would take further action. They also told the neighbours of the complainant’s mother to avoid her. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade considered those claims, and determined that they were not supported by evidence. The Department also considered it implausible that the authorities in China were looking for the complainant and were aware that her name had been published in the decision of the Federal Court. The Department further considered that the Government of China had not had an adverse interest in the complainant before her departure, given that they had permitted her to exit the country under her own passport. 4.11 To trigger a State party’s non-refoulement obligations under article 3 of the Convention, individuals must demonstrate that there are substantial grounds for believing that they would be in danger of being personally at risk of being subjected to torture. In the present case, the complainant has not established substantial grounds for believing that she would face such a risk in China. 4.12 With respect to the publication of the complainant’s name in the decision of the Federal Court, the State party acknowledges that the disclosure, which occurred as described by the complainant, constituted a breach of section 91X of the Privacy Act. However, on 4 January 2017 – less than two weeks after the decision was published on 22 December 2016 – lawyers for the State party notified the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade of the error, and the Court immediately removed the decision from its website and from the websites of third parties. On 6 January 2017, the Court replaced the decision with a properly redacted version. The error was temporary and inadvertent. Moreover, the Refugee Review Tribunal determined that even if the complainant had been identified and recognized by the authorities in China, there would be no significant, real risk of harm to her upon return. The Tribunal took note of country information stating that the authorities in China consider that it is common for individuals overstaying their visas in Australia to file applications for protection visas. The Tribunal therefore considered it highly likely that the authorities in China were aware that asylum applicants engaged in various activities for the purpose of obtaining GE.21-11876 5