CAT/C/60/D/708/2015 Committee’s rules of procedure for being manifestly unfounded and should be dismissed by the Committee without consideration of their merits. 4.2 The State party explains that the complainant’s claims have been thoroughly considered by a series of domestic decision makers, including during the refugee status assessment by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (now the Department of Immigration and Border Protection), an independent merits review and through three administrative protection assessment processes initiated by the Department (including the international treaties obligation assessment and a post-review protection check). 4.3 The State party also indicates that those decisions were subject to judicial review by the Federal Magistrates’ Court of Australia, the Federal Court of Australia and again by the Federal Magistrates’ Court (by then renamed the Federal Circuit Court of Australia) for any legal error in the decision taken by the Department in its second international treaties obligation assessment decision and in the decision of the independent merits reviewer. 4.4 The State party further indicates that the complainant’s claims were also reviewed through ministerial intervention processes. These domestic processes considered the complainant’s claims and consistently determined that they were not credible and did not engage the State party’s non-refoulement obligations. The State party emphasizes that the author’s claims have been assessed under the complementary protection provisions contained in paragraph 36 (2) (aa) of the Migration Act 1958, which reflect the State party’s non-refoulement obligations under the Convention and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 4.5 The State party submits that, with the exception of a new claim and evidence, the author has not provided any new relevant submission to the Committee that would not have been already considered through the domestic administrative and judicial processes.15 The State party requests the Committee to accept that it has thoroughly assessed the complainant’s claims through its domestic proceedings and found that the State party does not owe the complainant protection obligations under the Convention. 4.6 The State party acknowledges that complete accuracy cannot be expected from victims of torture and states that this factor was taken into account by all the domestic authorities involved in the assessment of the complainant’s credibility. For example, in the complainant’s refugee status assessment, it was acknowledged that “a decision maker must be sensitive to the difficulties often faced by asylum seekers and the benefit of the doubt should be given to those who are generally credible, but are unable of substantiate all of their claims”. In addition, the difficulty of assessing credibility was acknowledged by the independent merits reviewer who recognized that assessments of credibility “should not be made on demeanour or reaction at interview”. 4.7 In case the Committee considers that all the author’s allegations are admissible, the State party submits that they should be dismissed for lack of merit, as reflected in the decisions of the domestic authorities in the complainant’s case. 4.8 The State party submits that on 22 July 2010, the complainant was found not to have refugee status. The Department considered different claims made by the complainant to those made in his submission to the Committee. 16 The State party reports that in the refugee status assessment, the complainant claimed that he was in a refugee camp in April 2009 and was regularly interrogated and tortured by the Sri Lankan army, including being asked to identify LTTE members. He claimed that a friend had assisted him to pay a bribe in order to leave the camp and flee the country. The complainant also claimed that his brother had gone missing in 2007 but had reappeared in Switzerland (having been granted protection there) and that his sister’s husband had been kidnapped and never reappeared. The State party reports that in his entry interview dated 12 March 2010, the complainant had initially stated that he had one (missing) brother and two sisters, but in his subsequent refugee status 15 16 4 The State party refers to paras. 51-58 of its submission. The State party refers to the refugee status assessment of 2010. The complainant’s claims are outlined on page 2.