CAT/C/58/D/600/2014 5.4 The complainant submits that one should take into consideration in assessing his case and his demeanour in answering the questions of the State party’s decision makers that he was still a teenager at the time of the incident who had undergone a very frightening experience of seeing a woman being strangled; he had escaped from being abducted; and had undertaken an illegal and perilous boat journey. He was not used to living outside of his home country nor to answering questions under extreme stress and fear for his future safety. Therefore, before the interviewers, he may have made small inconsistences in his statements. 5.5 The Department of Immigration and Citizenship noted that the complainant’s claims were inconsistent with his first biodata interview. In that respect, the complainant submits that he felt rushed in his first biodata interview and was made to summarize his claims in Tamil in one sentence. Furthermore, he was never given an opportunity in the first interview to elaborate on his claims. The Department of Immigration and Citizenship also noted that the complainant’s claims were inconsistent with his first entry interview because he had only mentioned one attacker in the incident. The complainant accepts that he only mentioned one attacker and explains that he did so because the other soldier was not participating directly in the attack. The entry interview was also rushed and no further questions were asked. He adds that he also did not mention the white van during his entry interview as that element was not central to his request at that time and he did not think of mentioning it. 5.6 The complainant submits that the aforementioned inconsistences are minor and can be explained by the fact that he was stressed, required an interpreter and the first interviews were short. However, he was consistent in his explanations whenever he did not feel rushed. 5.7 The complainant contends that the Committee should not accept the Refugee Review Tribunal’s conclusion about his lack of credibility for the following reasons: (a) he was asked argumentative questions, such as how a woman could have screamed while being strangled, whereas in his testimony he said that he ran towards the house when he heard a woman scream, not when she was being strangled. He was confused about how to explain this obvious position without being considered argumentative and insolent. By repeating his story, he was attempting to explain to the Tribunal that the question itself was flawed; (b) he was asked questions for which answers were obvious, for example, why did he complain to the police. He thought that it was incumbent on any person who had witnessed a crime to report it to the police, as required by law and for one’s own safety. He was confused as to why such questions were being asked and thought that he was actually being asked about the facts of his case. Later, the Tribunal rephrased the question and he answered the newly formulated question; (c) he does not understand how he could have been more “spontaneous” and yet answer the T ribunal’s question as to whether he had seen the three men who allegedly came to his house one night; (d) he accepts that he did not immediately answer the Tribunal’s question as to why the men had come to his house, because he did not speak English and found it difficult using an interpreter. However, when the question was rephrased, he did answer the newly formulated question; (e) he accepts that he did not answer the Tribunal’s question as to why members of the Sri Lanka Army involved in an alleged murder would pursue him, when it would connect them to the alleged murder, because he did not speak English and the interpretation sometimes confused him. Unfortunately, he was u naware that he had inadvertently misunderstood the question; (f) regarding his inability to explain to the Tribunal the exact means through which his father had found out about the murder of the woman, he submits that he was not given time to ask his father, instead, he was declared not credible; (g) he submits that, in the specific circumstances of his case, it is unreasonable to expect him to remember the exact characteristics of the soldiers who were present at the crime scene; (h) he also argues that it is unreasonable to expect him 8