argued that “the definition of the act of torture should be a definition of the intrinsic nature of the act of torture itself, irrespective of the status of the perpetrator.”3 There was little support for the French view although most States did agree that “the Convention should not only be applicable to acts committed by public officials, but also to acts for which the public authorities could otherwise be considered to have some responsibility.”4 been given ample possibilities to present his case, as described below. In the primary stage of processing an application for a protection visa, a case officer from the Federal Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) examines the claim against the provisions of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. When there are claims which relate to the Convention against Torture and further clarification is required, the officer may seek an interview, using an interpreter if necessary. Applicants must be given the opportunity to comment on any adverse information, which will be taken into account when their claim is considered. Assessments of claims for refugee protection are made on an individual basis using all available and relevant information concerning the human rights situation in the applicant’s home country. Submissions from migration agents or solicitors can also form part of the material to be assessed. 4.7 The delegation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland made an alternative suggestion that the Convention refer to a “public official or any other agent of the State.”5 By contrast, the delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany “felt that it should be made clear that the term ‘public official’ referred not only to persons who, regardless of their legal status, have been assigned public authority by State organs on a permanent basis or in an individual case, but also to persons who, in certain regions or under particular conditions actually hold and exercise authority over others and whose authority is comparable to government authority or—be it only temporarily— has replaced government authority or whose authority has been derived from such persons.”6 4.11 The State party further explains that if an application for a protection visa is refused at the primary stage, a person can seek review of the decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT), an independent body with the power to grant a protection visa. RRT also examines claims against the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. If RRT intends making a decision that is unfavourable to the applicant on written evidence alone, it must give the applicant the opportunity of a personal hearing. Where there is a perceived error of law in the RRT decision, a further appeal may be made to the Federal Court for judicial review. 4.8 According to the State party it was ultimately “generally agreed that the definition should be extended to cover acts committed by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or any other person acting in an official capacity.” 7 It was not agreed that the definition should extend to private individuals acting in a non-official capacity, such as members of Somali armed bands. 4.12 DIMA provides for application assistance to be given to eligible protection visa applicants. Under this scheme, all asylum-seekers in detention have access to contracted service providers who assist with the preparation of the application form and exposition of their claims, and attend any interview. If the primary decision by DIMA is to refuse a protection visa, the service providers may assist with any further submissions to DIMA and any review applications to RRT. B. Observations on the merits 4.9 In addition to contesting the admissibility the State party argues, in relation to the merits, that there are no substantial grounds to believe that the author would be subjected to torture if returned to Somalia. The author has failed to substantiate his claim that he would be subjected to torture by members of the Hawiye and other armed clans in Somalia, or that the risk alleged is a risk of torture as defined in the Convention. 4.13 The State party draws the attention of the Committee to the fact that, in the present case, the author had the assistance of a migration agent in making his initial application and that an interview was conducted with him by an officer of DIMA with the assistance of an interpreter. In addition, during the course of the review by RRT of the primary decision, the author attended two days of hearings before RRT, during which he was also assisted by an interpreter. He was not represented by a migration agent at the RRT hearing, but the State party takes the view that legal representation before RRT is not necessary, as its proceedings are non-adversarial in nature. 4.10 The State party points to the existing domestic safeguards which ensure that genuine applicants for asylum and for visas on humanitarian grounds are given protection and through which the author has 3 Herman Burgers and Hans Danelius, The United Nations Convention against Torture: A Handbook on the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1988). 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid. 7 E/CN.4/L.1470, 12 March 1979, para. 18. 72