CAT/C/71/D/884/2018 and a copy of the report by the New South Wales Service for the Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture and Trauma Survivors in which the Service recommended that he resume counselling to assist him to manage his symptoms of depression and anxiety. With regard to the arrest warrant, the Departmental Officer (the delegate of the Minister) noted that she had reason to doubt the genuineness of the document, given that the High Commission of Sri Lanka did not advise the Australian Border Force of any arrest warrant when the latter sought a travel document for the complainant’s removal. As the complainant did not provide an explanation as to why the warrant had not been provided when it was first issued, and given the earlier finding by the Refugee Review Tribunal that the complainant was not a credible witness, the Departmental Officer was not satisfied that there was in fact an outstanding warrant against the complainant. On 17 August 2018, it was determined that the complainant’s request did not meet the criteria under section 417 of the Migration Act and that there were no unique or exceptional circumstances that would compel the Minister to intervene. Regarding the complainant’s request under section 48B of the Migration Act, the Departmental Officer noted that the complainant had not previously claimed to have been a member of the Tamil Tigers and had provided no explanation as to why he was raising that claim only now. The Departmental Officer determined that there was no new credible information or claims that met the criteria for referral to the Minister. 4.7 The State party submits that on 7 September 2018, the complainant filed a further request for ministerial intervention on the premise that there had been a data breach whereby the personal details of a number of asylum seekers had inadvertently been posted on the Department’s website. The State party informs the Committee that the complainant was not affected by the data breach. The data breach pertained to detainees in detention on 31 January 2014 only, and the complainant was not in detention at that time. 4.8 With regard to the additional information submitted by the complainant on 9 March 2019, the State party notes that his removal from Australia was cancelled while in transit on 10 September 2018 in response to the Committee’s request for interim measures. On 8 October 2018, the complainant was informed that his suitcase had arrived at the Bandaranaike International Airport on 11 September 2018. The State party submits that the additional information provided by the complainant does not alter the assessment by its Government regarding his claims about his membership of or association with the Tamil Tigers. According to the State party, there are inconsistencies between the complainant’s claims made during domestic processes regarding the issue and those that he has made to the Committee. The claims also changed at each stage of the domestic process of consideration prior to the complainant’s submission of his communication to the Committee. The State party considers that the complainant has not provided credible evidence to substantiate his claims that the authorities in Sri Lanka perceive him to have a personal connection with the Tamil Tigers or to be affiliated with them in any way, or that there is foreseeable, personal, present and real risk that he will be tortured. The State party acknowledges that complete accuracy can seldom be expected from victims of torture. 2 However, this factor was taken into consideration by domestic decision makers in forming views on the complainant’s credibility. Should the Committee find that the complainant’s claims about his membership or association with the Tamil Tigers are credible, the State party submits that such membership or association would not elevate his profile in such a way as to attract any adverse attention from the authorities in Sri Lanka. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 31 October 2019, the complainant submitted his comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits. He submits that the Government of the State party has implemented a refugee review system that is effectively biased, in that it has sought to persecute former members of the Tamil Tigers through its characterization of them as security risks,3 and by instilling fear into cohorts of Tamil asylum seekers, dissuading them 2 3 General comment No. 4 (2017), para. 42. The complainant submits that this characterization has been done through adverse assessments by the Australian Security Intelligence Organization (see 5