CAT/C/34/D/211/2002 Page 7 experienced by the population at large. To the extent that the complainant relies upon the current country situation, there is insufficient evidence that the risk is a real and foreseeable risk that is personal to him. Accordingly, this aspect of the communication should be dismissed for lack of merit. 4.10 Concerning the additional claims that (i) the first RRT decision was tainted by bias and was decided against him despite the weight of evidence in his favour, and (ii) that the second RRT decision was unreasonable, the State party submits that this aspect of the communication should be dismissed as inadmissible ratione materiae on the grounds that it is incompatible with article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention and Rule 107, paragraph 1(d). Further, it argued that the complainant had failed to properly exhaust domestic remedies in relation to these two issues and this aspect of the communication should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 107, paragraph 1(f). Alternatively, this aspect of the communication should also be dismissed as lacking merit. 4.11 Firstly, the State party argues that the complainant has provided no argument or evidence to explain how the alleged procedural irregularities amount to a breach of any of the provisions of the Convention. As the Committee is not a judicial body with power to supervise domestic courts and tribunals, it is unclear on what basis the complainant asks the Committee to review the domestic procedural aspects of his claim to refugee status. Accordingly, this aspect of the communication should be dismissed as inadmissible ratione materiae, as incompatible with article 22, paragraph 2 of the Convent ion and Rule 107, paragraph 1(d). 4.12 Second, the State party contends that this aspect of the communication must be dismissed for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. The complainant did not pursue judicial review of the first RRT decision that he now impugns as both biased and flawed due to a misapplication of the law. Nor did he pursue an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court from the decision of the Full Federal Court concerning the RRT’s second decision. He provided no explanation as to why his application for special leave was withdrawn. Accordingly, he has failed properly to exhaust domestic remedies in relation to these two issues. 4.13 The State party reiterates that the complainant was provided with two opportunities to pursue his application for refugee status and enjoyed ample opportunity to demonstrate the bona fides of his claim. He was interviewed on arrival and submitted an application for a protection visa on 12 December 1995. On 21 December 1995 he provided a more detailed statement of facts by way of statutory declaration. All information provided to the Department was considered during the assessment of his first application. He was subsequently permitted to file a second application when questions about the validity of his first application were raised. He has thus had the benefit of his application for a protection visa being assessed by two different immigration officials in two separate decision making processes. He exercised his right to independent merits revie w of both adverse decisions and attended hearings before the Refugee Review Tribunal that were fair and unbiased. He was provided with assistance for the purpose of his application and subsequent RRT proceedings. He also pursued judicial review of the second RRT decision. His case was also assessed taking into account the obligation of non-refoulement under article 3 of the Convention.