CAT/C/56/D/591/2014 in detention, he has nightmares and sleep difficulties. In that regard, he states that he has been referred to several mental-health counsellors. 5.5 Regarding the data breach by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, he affirms that he has never been in any detention centre in Australia and that his personal details were not disclosed. 5.6 Regarding the current situation in Sri Lanka, the complainant refers to a publication dated 7 March 2015, in which it is stated that “any returnee will be harassed at the airport”. The complainant submits that the bail conditions are severe and it takes years to be released owing to the lengthy court proceedings. Also, every time the court adjourns, the deportee incurs costs in relation to court appearances. He states that travel from the east (Batticaloa) to the south (Negombo), hotel accommodation, retaining the services of a defence lawyer and paying the fees are a very high cost for the returnee. He emphasizes that it is not a one-off cost; it may last for a substantial period of time. 5.7 With regard to the State party’s argument that the complainant has family in Sri Lanka, the complainant submits that his mother is very old and cannot travel to Negombo and that his three sisters have their own families. In addition, he does not want to expose his mother and sisters to any ill-treatment, given that his uncle was assaulted for helping him. 5.8 On 24 May 2015, the complainant submits that he was detained by the State party’s immigration authorities on 21 May 2015 with a view to deporting him and that he fears persecution and risk to his safety if deported to Sri Lanka. State party’s additional observations 6.1 On 29 May 2015, the State party refers to, inter alia, its observations on the admissibility and merits of 15 September 2014 and reiterates that it has considered the complainant’s claims and additional submissions and found that there is no new and credible information to support his claims. 6.2 The State party notes that the complainant’s additional submissions of 16 March 2015 and 24 May 2015 were also considered. It notes that the complainant’s claims that one of the reasons why the Refugee Review Tribunal “assumed” that his story was not credible was because of the confusion concerning the name of the church in which he had allegedly sought refuge from mid-2011 to February 2012. In that regard, the State party submits that it was reasonable for the Refugee Review Tribunal to reach those conclusions since the complainant was present at the hearing and was given the opportunity to clarify his statements with the assistance of an interpreter. In any event, the State party reiterates that the Tribunal’s conclusion regarding the complainant’s credibility were not based solely on the matter of the name of the church. The Tribunal relied on a culmination of factors in reaching its conclusion, including how the complainant re-entered Sri Lanka in 2011 without attracting the interest of the Sri Lankan authorities, despite allegedly being of interest to the Criminal Investigation Department. 6.3 With regard to returning individuals to Sri Lanka, the State party submits that the complainant’s claims of being an LTTE supporter were extensively considered in the assessment of his protection visa application, the Tribunal review and the assessments of his requests for ministerial intervention. Each procedure found that the complainant’s claims lacked credibility and/or did not give rise to a specific profile that would place him at risk of harm if returned to Sri Lanka. Taking into account the most recent country information, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection assessed the complainant’s additional submissions of 16 March 2015 and 24 May 2015 and concluded that there was no new and credible, relevant information that had not been 10