CAT/C/71/D/884/2018 arrest. The complainant argues that this reasoning displays a lack of serious engagement in the ministerial intervention process, including a realistic assessment of the risks that he would be tortured should he be removed to Sri Lanka. According to the complainant, the High Commission of Sri Lanka was not asked whether there were any outstanding warrants. There is no reason to believe that the High Commission would disclose to the Australian Government whether a warrant had been issued for his arrest if such information was not requested. Indeed, for the High Commission to do so would be tantamount to informing the Government of Australia that the complainant was a refugee and that it had international protection obligations. The complainant notes that despite the fact that the Government of Australia had held information about his arrest warrant since 16 August 2018, it never took the opportunity to check its genuineness with the authorities in Sri Lanka. 5.6 The complainant also makes two sur place claims. First, the complainant submits that the Federal Circuit Court included in its decision information related to his identity – his date of birth, date of arrival in Australia, place of work in Sri Lanka, biographical details and details of his claims for protection – and the decision was published as open source material on the website of the Australasian Legal Information Institute. A copy of the transcript of the court proceedings during which he had indicated that he was a member of the Tamil Tigers was also attached and open to the public. 5.7 The complainant’s second sur place claim is that sensitive documents – including documents related to his application for asylum, a copy of his arrest warrant, photographs showing him with weapons, a copy of the report containing his claims that he had been tortured by the authorities in Sri Lanka and a flash drive containing revolutionary songs – were erroneously sent in his suitcase to Sri Lanka on 10 September 2018. Since then, agents from the Criminal Investigation Department had visited the complainant’s parents’ home twice, as they were concerned that he may have arrived in Sri Lanka but then escaped from the airport through bribery. 5.8 The complainant submits that his scarring also indicates his involvement with the Tamil Tigers. He notes that he was injured on the left side of his neck during the war when a Claymore mine exploded, and that has scarring on his right elbow from his torture in 2010. He submits that his hip and knees were also injured and that he suffered as a result of his sexual torture, referring to reports of the counsellor and psychologist for descriptions of those injuries. 5.9 The complainant notes that the ruling refusing his request for ministerial intervention lodged on 18 September 2019 indicated that an overview of the evidence was not considered, with each piece of evidence refused almost exclusively on the basis that the Refugee Review Tribunal had found the complainant not to be a witness of truth. He argues that no further evidence would consequently be considered properly by the State party after a refusal by the Tribunal. According to the complainant, since the arrest warrant and the three reports by the New South Wales Service for the Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture and Trauma Survivors post-date the decision of the Tribunal, the Minister’s refusal to consider this evidence in a genuine way – for example, through a process of document examination, and examination of the evidence and his later claims in a cumulative and holistic manner – constitutes a failure to conduct a serious and competent assessment of the State party’s obligations under article 3 of the Convention. State party’s additional observations on the merits 6.1 On 5 March 2020, the State party submitted additional observations on the merits of the complaint. The State party rejects the complainant’s claims that the refugee review system in Australia is “effectively biased” and that the Government has failed to undertake serious consideration or assessment of his evidence and claims. The State party notes that the Committee has commented previously that the domestic legal system in Australia offers a robust process of merits and judicial review to ensure that any error made by an initial decision maker can be corrected.5 It submits that if the complainant has claims that still have 5 Y.Z.S. v. Australia (CAT/C/49/D/417/2010), para. 4.13. 7