CAT/C/58/D/599/2014 the country to which he is to be returned.7 In this connection, the State party maintains that the complainant has failed to establish such risk. Should the Committee consider the communication admissible, the State party submits that the complainant’s claims are without merit. 4.4 The State party argues that the complainant’s claims were thoroughly considered by a number of domestic decision makers and review bodies, including the Federal Circuit Court. Each body specifically considered the complainant’s claims and determined that he was not at a foreseeable, real or personal risk of torture under article 3 of the Convention if returned to Sri Lanka. In particular, the complainant’s claims were assessed under the complementary protection provisions of section 36 (2) (aa) of the Migration Act, which contains the State party’s non-refoulement obligations under, inter alia, the Convention. The State party notes that the complainant has not provided any relevant new evidence in his submissions to the Committee that has not already been considered in the domestic administrative and judicial proceedings. In this regard, the State party refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 1, in which it is stated that the Committee is not an appellate or judicial body and that it gives considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by the organs of the State party concerned. 4.5 The State party acknowledges that complete accuracy can seldom be expected from victims of torture,8 however, that factor was taken into consideration by the domestic authorities when forming their views on the complainant’s credibility. In assessing the complainant’s protection visa application, a reasonable margin of appreciation was given to flaws and inconsistencies in his testimony. 4.6 The State party notes that the complainant’s claims were considered during the protection visa proceedings as well as in the independent merits review by the Refugee Review Tribunal, the judicial review by the Federal Circuit Court, the review of the complainant’s appeal of the Federal Circuit Court’s decision before the Federal Court of Australia and the review of his request for ministerial intervention of 11 December 2013. 4.7 In particular, the complainant lodged an application for a protection visa on 30 June 2012. He was granted a bridging visa on 16 August 2012 while his protection visa application was being considered by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. On 16 August 2012, the complainant’s protection visa application was refused. The complainant was granted additional bridging visas on 13 June 2013 and 14 August 2013 through ministerial intervention under section 195A of the Migration Act. 4.8 The State party submits that the authorities interviewed the complainant (with the assistance of an interpreter) and also considered other relevant material, such as country information provided by the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs Trade and by nongovernmental organizations such as Amnesty International. The authorities had considered all of the claims made by the complainant in his submissions to the Committee, except the claim relating to his activities in Australia, which had not been raised by the complainant at that any stage. The authorities found that the complainant’s claims that he left school when he was 10 years old because school attendance was too dangerous and that he subsequently spent six years living with family and friends in Colombo were not credible. The authorities also concluded that the difficulties experienced by the complainant at the hands of the army officers while he was employed as a jeweller in Colombo were not serious enough to constitute serious harm and therefore did not amount to persecution. The authorities further concluded that his past experiences of harassment did not provide evidence that he would 7 8 4 Ibid., para. 4; also G.R.B. v. Sweden. See communication No. 21/1995, Alan v. Sweden, Views adopted on 8 May 1996, para. 11.3.