CAT/C/57/D/605/2014 6.8 The complainant submits that he learned for the first time through the State party’s submission that the claims he made with respect to his membership of the Facebook group “Cool Tamils”, in which prominent members of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam regularly make posts praising Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam activities and attempt to mobilize support against the Government of Sri Lanka were dismissed for lack of evidence during the ministerial intervention process. He admits that the Minister’s power to intervene is not compellable by law and that there is no duty established in law to explain why any application might be rejected. Nevertheless, he claims that given the Sri Lankan Government’s recent history of attempting to extirpate any remaining “rump” of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, the presumption should be that the Sri Lankan Government in fact monitors such pages, as it is an easy matter to do so. The complainant reiterates that the State party demonstrated that it was preparing for his removal as his bridging visa was due to expire on 28 May 2015. The immigration officer reportedly told the complainant that if he did not provide evidence of preparing his imminent departure from Australia, he would be detained. State party’s additional observations 7.1 On 29 May 2015, the State party submitted that the need for interim measures was not justified and that the complainant did not face any prospect of irreparable harm should he be removed to Sri Lanka. It referred to its preceding request to lift the interim measures, dated 16 April 2015, which was denied by the Committee on 1 May 2015. 7.2 The State party reiterated that it considers each request for interim measures in good faith, on its merits, through an established process. The assessment of interim measures requests includes consideration of whether the author’s claims engage the State party’s nonrefoulement obligations. Having carefully considered the information provided by the complainant, the State party determined that there were no substantial grounds for believing that he faced a real risk of irreparable harm if returned to Sri Lanka. Consequently, it assessed the interim measures request to be unwarranted. 7.3 The State party outlined its comprehensive domestic processes, which have consistently determined that the State party’s non-refoulement obligations, including under article 3 of the Convention against Torture, are not engaged with respect to the complainant, and noted that no new and credible information was provided in that regard. The national proceedings included consideration by the Refugee Review Tribunal, a judicial review by the Federal Circuit Court, and a request to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to use his discretionary and non-compellable power under sections 48B and 417 of the Migration Act 1958 to intervene in favour of an unsuccessful visa application if he considers it in the public interest to do so. 7.4 In light of the assessment by the State party in response to the interim measures request that there are not substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm to the author if returned to Sri Lanka, the State party respectfully requested that the Committee lift the interim measures request. On 18 August 2015, the Committee decided to maintain its request for interim measures. 7.5 On 23 December 2015, the State party submitted a response to the complainant’s submission of 15 May 2015, indicating that the Department of Immigration and Border Protection assessed the credibility of the complainant’s claims with respect to his association with Mr. K. and determined that the author’s relationship with Mr. K. did not raise a real risk of torture should the author be returned to Sri Lanka. The Department has assessed that the post-mortem report does not support the author’s claims, as it does not contain any information that links the author to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam or to the person who is referred to in the post-mortem report. The description of the wounds in the post-mortem report is not consistent with the author’s claims that the body was GE.16-09596 9