3.A.K. claims that his forced repatriation to Sudan would violate his rights under article 3 of the Convention, as there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. In support of his claim, he argues that his religion, his prior political activities, and the fact that he is a military deserter, puts him at a real personal risk of being subjected to torture. That he fled the country to avoid conscription would expose him to a threat of execution on return. Finally, he claims that if he were sent back he would be required to serve with the PDF and would be forced to fight against his will in the civil war. The State party’s submission 4.1 By submission of 7 November 2000, the State party contests the admissibility and merits of all aspects of the complaint. On admissibility, the State party submits that the complainant has failed to substantiate his claim, misinterpreted the scope of its obligation under article 3, and failed to establish a substantial and personal risk of torture. 4.2 The State party invites the Committee to decide that findings of fact by domestic bodies, that are relevant to the assessment of risk under article 3, will be accepted by the Committee unless there is clear evidence of manifest arbitrariness, injustice or a violation of judicial independence or impartiality. It submits that the interpretation and application of domestic law is primarily a matter for national courts and generally not appropriate for review by the Committee. It further argues that the RRT is independent and experienced in the review of Sudanese citizens’ applications, having received 21 applications from Sudanese nationals in 1997 and 1998. Of the 8 applications that were heard and determined among the 21 applications made, the RRT set aside the decision of the immigration authorities to refuse a protection visa in the majority of cases (5), and affirmed the decision in 3 cases. In this case, the complainant had the benefit of two separate hearings before the RRT. His legal representative was present during both hearings and he was assisted by a professional interpreter on each occasion. The State party notes that the complainant has not provided the Committee with any new country information that was not also available to, and considered by, the RRT. 4.3 The State party submits that the evidence supporting the allegation of torture lacks credibility and accordingly a prima facie case has not been established. In the course of questioning by the RRT, the complainant made inconsistent statements concerning three significant issues. Firstly, he significantly changed his evidence regarding previous experiences with the Sudanese authorities. On arrival at Sydney airport and when asked whether he was threatened with physical violence by the Sudanese authorities, he answered “Yes”. However, when asked, “In what form?”, he changed his response to, “No, I have not been threatened”. He then became uncooperative with the interpreter. 4.4 When interviewed by the DIMA, the complainant asserted that he had told the interpreter at the airport that he had been threatened with “cutting fingernails, and also hitting the chest - like burning ... removing the fingernails”, but that he had not been tortured. He also claimed to have been threatened with these forms of torture in his supporting statement for his protection visa application, prepared between the airport and DIMA interviews with the assistance of a legal representative. In the State party’s view, his explanation that the interpretation and/or transcription of his airport interview was inadequate is unconvincing. 4.5 Secondly, the complainant made contradictory statements about the acquisition of the passport he used to enter Australia and his use of passports generally. The complainant continued to make inconsistent statements on this issue throughout the procedure to such an extent that the delegate of the DIMA could make no finding as to his identity or nationality. The State party sets out in detail the contradictions in the complainant’s evidence, including one statement that he obtained his passport in the marketplace from a man he did not know and to whom he paid nothing, another that he used his brother’s passport to leave Sudan and travel through Chad, Libya, Malta, Malaysia and Singapore over a period of two years, and yet a third contradiction that it was an official passport but it contained wrong information. 4.6 Thirdly, the State party invokes the complainant’s lack of credibility concerning his claimed political activities and the interest of the Sudanese authorities therein. His evidence about his political involvement vis-à-vis his employment was implausible, contradictory and became increasingly convoluted over time. During the DIMA interview, the complainant described his main task as guarding either the prison or administration building and ensuring that there were no illegal entries. In the second RRT hearing, he claimed he transmitted letters between political prisoners and their families, without explaining how he had contact with the prisoners when his job was to act as sentinel at the external entrance to the buildings. He also claimed in this hearing that this transmission service operated successfully because the prisoners had an “instinctive ... sense”, that he had sympathetic political aims. 4.7 The State party submits that there is a lack of detail concerning, and independent corroboration of, the ill-treatment allegedly experienced by the complainant at the hands of the Sudanese authorities. The complainant only once provided the details of the one incident of alleged physical ill-treatment referred to in paragraph 4.4. Even if this claim was credible, mere threats of physical violence by the Sudanese authorities: arrest and interrogation; and a house search followed by low-level surveillance for a short period do not constitute harm amounting to severe pain or suffering. There is no evidence that the complainant suffered actual physical harm. 4.8 With respect to the alleged rally itself, the State party submits that it has been unable to find any information referring to such a rally in April 1992. Given that it is the only public political event that the complainant alleges to have been involved in, the failure of either his representatives or the State party to uncover any evidence of it seriously undermines the credibility of his claim. The complainant attempted to play down the scale of this rally when asked to explain why there was no independent evidence that it had taken place. 4.9 With respect to the evidence provided to corroborate the complainant’s claim that he was politically active in the Umma Party, the evidence produced by him in the form of a fax from the London branch was rejected by the RRT for its low probative value. There is no information in the fax that demonstrates any knowledge of the complainant personally, beyond stating that he is a party member, and simply makes general statements about the persecution of Umma members in Sudan. A letter from the National Democratic Alliance (Sudan) Australia Branch (NDA), dated 5 February 1998, addressed “to whom it may concern” similarly displays a lack of specific knowledge of the complainant’s circumstances or background. It refers to him only once, describing him as