The State party’s submission on the admissibility and merits of the complaint 4.1 On 14 November 2000, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. It explains that it was unable to comply with the Committee’s request for interim measures of protection because no written request from the Committee had been received by the time of the complainant’s removal from Australia on 26 January 2000. The State party adds that UNHCR’s office in Australia was notified of the complainant’s imminent removal and did not object, and that all potential risks of return had been fully assessed based on available country information. 4.2 For the State party, the complaint is inadmissible as incompatible with the provisions of the Convention. Further, the State party alleges that the complainant has failed to make out a prima facie case that there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be subjected to torture, on the event of his return to Algeria. The State party adds that the complainant has failed to disclose any reasonable basis for his belief that he is at risk of torture. 4.3 The State party observed that there is no evidence that Algerian authorities have ever tortured the complainant in the past, and evidence that he has actually been involved in the political activities of the FIS is very scant. It argues that the account of the complainant’s activities contains many inconsistencies, which casts doubts on his credibility. On the strength of the evidence, the State party does not accept that the complainant is an FIS supporter. 4.4 On the possibility that the complainant may be required to undergo military service upon his return to Algeria, the State party argues that the complainant was unlikely to be required to undergo further military service either because he has already completed the service, or because he is too old to be drafted into military service. The State party states that, in any event, any requirement to perform military service does not constitute torture. In addition, the State party invokes the Refugee Review Tribunal’s (RRT) finding that the complainant has fabricated his claim to have outstanding military service obligations. The RRT stated that the complainant had exaggerated his claims in comparison to when he first raised them on arrival in Australia. 4.5 As to the publication of the judgement of the Federal Court of Australia, the State party denies that this might prompt the Algerian authorities to torture the complainant upon his return to Algeria. There is no evidence to suggest that the Algerian authorities have shown any interest in the complainant’s activities since 1992, when he claims to have been arrested and detained for 45 minutes. The State party notes that the suggestion that the Algerian authorities would be scanning Internet legal databases in Australia to determine his whereabouts strains credulity. For the State party, it is highly unlikely that the publication, on Internet, to refuse him a protection visa would have come to the Algerian authorities’ attention. Accordingly, there are no substantial grounds for believing that the complainant is in danger of torture on this count. 4.6 The State party concedes that DIMA had noted that the author’s relatives who had experienced harm or mistreatment had been active members of the FIS or Islamic clerics, but on his own evidence, the complainant was neither of these, and had not attracted the attention of the authorities, except once in 1992, when he claimed to have been detained for 45 minutes. Further, the State party cites the RRT’s finding that the complainant was able to depart from Algeria on three occasions and to return twice without any problems. This indicates that the complainant does not attract the authorities’ attention. 135