CCPR/C/112/D/2053/2011 claim is true, it is only an isolated incident which does not evidence widespread refusal or inability on the part of Senegal to protect the author on the basis of his religious beliefs. In any event, RRT explicitly considered that claim and rejected the author’s contention that there would not be adequate or effective protection available to the author in the reasonably foreseeable future. 4.10 The State party observes that, although the author claims that he was assaulted on two occasions and that he would not be safe in any town or city, he only sought police protection once. Accordingly, the State party is of the view that the author failed to substantiate his claim that the police in Senegal are unable or unwilling to protect him from harm. 4.11 The State party also submits that there is no evidence that the author has attempted to relocate to any other part of Senegal other than Kaolack in order to avoid harm from his family. It adds that country information on the Mourides Brotherhood suggests that, while there may be incidents of intolerance, in general the Mourides Brotherhood displays a high degree of tolerance. Furthermore, although the author’s family belongs to the Mourides Brotherhood, there is no evidence to suggest that the Mourides Brotherhood as an organization initiated, condoned or sanctioned any harm to the author. 4.12 The State party notes that the author’s communication before the Committee does not contain any new material that has not already been considered by the Australian authorities in determining whether he was entitled to a protection visa under Australian law, and that his claim for protection was thoroughly considered by DIAC and RRT. After examining all the available evidence, RRT found that the author does have adequate and effective State protection available to him in Senegal, and that consequently his fear of persecution is not well-founded. Nonetheless, it referred the case for consideration under section 417 of the Migration Act on humanitarian grounds on the basis that, despite the finding that State protection would be adequate, that did not mean that there was a complete guarantee that the author would be safe from future harm by members of his family and their associates, which may constitute unique and exceptional circumstances. The State party notes that the “absence of complete guarantee” is different from the test of “real risk” applied by the Committee. The Minister subsequently declined to intervene in the author’s case.5 4.13 The State party submits that the decision not to grant the author a protection visa was properly determined according to Australian law, based on a robust process of merits and judicial review offered by the domestic legal system. The State party notes the Committee’s position that it is for the courts of States parties to evaluate facts and evidence in a particular case, unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary, or amounted to a denial of justice.6 The proceedings in the author’s case did not suffer from any such defects. 4.14 The State party further contends that recent country information confirms the RRT finding that Senegal is able to provide adequate and effective protection to the author. 7 In particular, recent information indicates that Senegal has taken reasonable measures to protect the lives and safety of its citizens, including by ensuring that appropriate criminal 5 6 7 A further section 417 request was initiated by DIAC on 7 July 2011, but was found not to meet the guidelines for referral to the Minister (see para. 4.4 above). Communication No. 541/1993, Simms v. Jamaica, inadmissibility decision adopted on 3 April 1995, para. 6.2. The State party refers to the International Religious Freedom Reports 2008, 2009 and 2010 of the United States Department of State, and its 2010 Human Rights Report: Senegal. Available from www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/af/154366.htm. 7