- 140 subsequently stated that he first left Somalia in 1991. In a statutory declaration made to the RRT on 2 September 1998 the petitioner admitted that he made a number of false statements when he arrived in Sydney. The State party also states that the RRT found it implausible that UNOSOM would employ someone who had been out of the country for some period to locate arms caches in Mogadishu. The State party also referred to the RRT’s finding that the petitioner had attempted to prevent the Tribunal from investigating his case through people who have first-hand information regarding his situation since 1991. 4.4 Moreover, the State party submits that the acts the petitioner fears if he were returned to Somalia do not fall within the meaning of “torture” as defined in article 1 of the Convention because they are not acts by a public official or person acting in an official capacity. The State party accepts that “members of minority groups are subject to harassment, intimidation, and abuse by armed gunmen of all affiliations”d but does not accept that these are 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, as required under article 1 of the Convention. It asserts that these are acts committed by individuals in a private capacity for reasons of personal gain.e 4.5 The State party refers to the Committee’s View’s adopted on 14 May 1999 in Elmi v. Australia,f case No. 120/1998, and accepts that, although some clans may operate as quasi-governmental institutions in some areas of Somalia, this must be clearly differentiated from random acts of violence committed by individuals acting in a private capacity. There is no evidence to suggest that all members of a dominant clan at all times are acting in a quasi-governmental capacity. It would also be difficult to determine whether militia are acting under specific orders at any particular time as “security forces are unreliable, unpaid, untrained for peaceful duties and often out of control”.g To support its argument on the necessity of considering whether acts are carried out in a public or a private capacity in order to determine whether those acts constitute torture, the State party provides academic commentary and views of international and national courts and tribunals. 4.6. In addition, the State party contends that there is no evidence to suggest that the alleged acts took place as a result of either decisions made by the clan hierarchy, or orders from USC leaders. Neither is there any evidence to suggest that the alleged acts were instigated on behalf of the clan or militia, or that either the clan or militia acquiesced or had any knowledge of the alleged acts. To support this argument, the State party observes that the petitioner alleged that the rape and murder of his sister was at the instigation of the USC which was seeking members of the police force of the former regime, including the petitioner’s father; this account is not consistent with a report of an assessment mission to Mogadishu undertaken in 1991.h The State party is of the opinion that this incident was probably a consequence of the general climate of violence described as prevalent in Mogadishu at that time, rather than the acts of persons carrying out orders by USC leaders to torture and kill families of former members of the Barre regime. 4.7 With respect to the murder of his wife and the assaults on the petitioner himself, the State party points out that the petitioner gave two versions of the incident. Previously, he said that his house was hit by a bomb during fighting between Aideed’s forces (USC) and UNOSOM. Subsequently, the petitioner claimed that the attack on his home followed earlier conversations with members of the Hamiye clan regarding his father’s employment with the Barre regime,