CAT/C/71/D/754/2016 the Tribunal decided that he was not involved at all with his brother’s political activities. Nevertheless, it did not find that that person was not his brother. He did not know much about his brother’s political activities as he did not act out of political convictions. Moreover, the fact that there exists an age difference of more than 10 years between them means that their worlds are different. The complainant did not understand the context of the questions posed by the Tribunal, which placed an unreasonable weight on his answers. With regard to inconsistencies in his account of his involvement in the elections, the Tribunal did not accept his reply that he was nervous and that the events had occurred two and a half years ago. However, he is only required to provide substantial grounds for believing there is a risk of torture upon return, not to provide full proof of the truthfulness of his allegations. 16 He stated on several occasions that he was scared and nervous and could have been so identified under the guidelines on vulnerable persons issued by the Australian authorities. The Tribunal did not consider the possibility mentioned in the guidelines of impaired memory, produced in the complainant’s case by a possible trauma due to the death threats. He did not produce evidence in that regard because he was unaware of his condition. The Tribunal discounted relevant factors mentioned in the guidelines on the assessment of credibility, including interpretation difficulties, the effects of anxiety, background, education and the level of knowledge that would reasonably be expected. 5.5 The complainant claims that although the Refugee Review Tribunal accepted that there could have been issues with the interpreter in the entry interview, it did not take that possibility into consideration with respect to later interviews. The reasoning of the Tribunal is opaque, in that it stated that certain issues were found to be unclear owing to interpretation problems, even though it also found that any other interpretation difficulties should have been raised earlier. The complainant was still unaware of the degree of consistency expected of him, as issues of consistency were not put to him until the Tribunal interview. Moreover, his representative was chosen and paid for by the authorities, which convinced him that the representative was not concerned with his case. The representative consulted very little with the complainant. The Tribunal acted with prejudice where it decided to place no weight on the documents submitted because it had already concluded that the complainant lacked credibility, showing that it did not consider the documents in its credibility assessment. Its decision to discard the documents solely on the basis of the prevalence of document fraud in Sri Lanka is discriminatory. Despite the advice contained in the guidelines on the assessment of credibility, there is no record that the prevalence of document fraud was put to the complainant. 5.6 The complainant refers to information stating that the police’s response to election violence in Sri Lanka has been uneven.17 Those who threatened him knew about his police complaint. The police were likely taking orders from politically involved people. State party’s observations on the merits 6.1 The State party provided its observations on the merits by note verbale of 11 September 2017. It reiterates its view that the complaint is inadmissible or without merit. 18 16 17 18 David Weissbrodt and Isabel Hörtreiter, “The principle of non-refoulement: article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in comparison with the non-refoulement provisions of other international human rights treaties”, Buffalo Human Rights Law Review, vol. 5 (No. 1), 1999, p. 55. Austrian Centre for Country of Origin and Asylum Research and Documentation, Sri Lanka: COI Compilation (December 2016), p. 118. The State party also submits that the Committee’s consideration of the State party’s submissions on admissibility owing to a lack of substantiation in certain cases, namely the Committee’s observation that the complainant had sufficiently detailed the facts and basis of the claim for a decision, was not detailed enough. See Y.S. v. Australia (CAT/C/59/D/633/2014), para. 6.3; K.V. v. Australia (CAT/C/58/D/600/2014), para. 6.2; and D.M. v. Australia (CAT/C/58/D/595/2014), para. 8.3. The State party further submits the practice of the Committee in other cases of proceeding to examining the merits after having observed that the issues raised in respect of admissibility are closely related to the merits does not satisfy rule 118 of the rules of procedure that admissibility must be properly determined before consideration of the merits. See E.S. v. Australia (CAT/C/59/D/652/2015), para. 8.2; R.K. v. Australia (CAT/C/58/D/609/2014), para. 7.3; and T. v. Australia 5