CAT/C/71/D/884/2018 not been raised before domestic decision makers, he can have them assessed by submitting further requests for ministerial intervention. 6.2 The State party notes that the complainant’s claim of further risk of remand and imprisonment for up to five years for using a false passport was most recently considered as part of the ministerial intervention assessment of 18 September 2019. The Departmental Officer found that this claim had already been assessed by the Refugee Review Tribunal, which had concluded that the complainant would be charged, bailed and fined for having departed Sri Lanka illegally, but that such action would not amount to serious harm. The State party submits that the fact that the complainant has travelled on a false passport does not alter the Government’s assessment that there are no substantial grounds for believing that he faces a real risk of irreparable harm in Sri Lanka. It refers to the Government’s most recent country information report on Sri Lanka, published by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on 23 May 2018, which includes information on the treatment of Sri Lankan refugees. According to that report, failed asylum seekers who leave Sri Lanka illegally and are returned may receive a fine or a custodial sentence under the Immigrants and Emigrants Act; in practice, however, most cases result in a fine and not imprisonment.6 6.3 With regard to the complainant’s claim that the fact that his suitcase was sent to Sri Lanka elevates his profile with the authorities there, the State party argues that this incident does not alter its assessment of the complainant’s membership of or association with the Tamil Tigers, noting that this claim was considered as part of the assessment, dated 14 October 2019, of the request for ministerial intervention under section 48B of the Migration Act. The State party refers to V.M. v. Australia, in which the Committee indicated that it must consider whether the complainant currently ran a risk of torture if returned to Sri Lanka.7 According to the State party, the complainant provided no additional evidence to substantiate his claim that he would be of adverse interest upon return to Sri Lanka. 6.4 The State party rejects the complainant’s allegation that various pieces of evidence relevant to his case, including forensic and clinical reports, evidence of a false passport and evidence of an arrest warrant, have not been considered. It submits that the domestic processes have had regard to the complainant’s claims and evidence, including having due regard to inconsistencies and problems of proof in relation to his claims. According to the State party, the Refugee Review Tribunal noted that, throughout the hearings, it had clarified the complainant’s evidence to ensure accuracy of understanding, had taken account of nervousness and had been mindful of nuances in language when communicating through an interpreter. As to the complainant’s medical records, in his request for ministerial intervention of 16 August 2018, the Departmental Officer was provided with copies of three assessments conducted by International Health and Medical Services, dated 25 May 2018, 13 June 2018 and 29 June 2018, and a copy of the report by the New South Wales Service for the Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture and Trauma Survivors, dated 16 July 2018, in which the Service recommended that the complainant resume counselling to assist him to manage his symptoms of depression and anxiety. The Departmental Officer observed that the mental health of asylum seekers was taken into consideration throughout the domestic process, and that the complainant had still been found not to be a credible witness by the primary decision maker and by the Tribunal. 6.5 The State party notes that the complainant’s claims regarding a false passport were also considered by the domestic authorities, but that those claims changed throughout the domestic processes. The primary decision maker initially noted that the complainant had travelled on a legal passport. Later in the interview, he noted that the complainant was not sure if the passport was legal or not. However, the complainant confirmed that it showed his own photo and name. The decision maker concluded that the complainant had travelled in and out of Sri Lanka on a genuine passport, or at least on a passport obtained through the appropriate authorities with accurate biodata and photo. In the complainant’s request for ministerial intervention request of 18 September 2019, the Departmental Officer noted that 6 7 8 Australia, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, “DFAT country information report: Sri Lanka”, 23 May 2018, para. 5.32. V.M. v. Australia (CAT/C/67/D/723/2015), para. 7.8.