CAT/C/51/D/434/2010 4.31 For these reasons, the State party submits that information provided by the complainants is not sufficient to substantiate a claim under article 16 and the claim is therefore inadmissible. 4.32 In the alternative, the State party submits that the impending removal of the complainants would not cause mental pain or suffering sufficient to meet the requirements of article 16 of the Convention and as such the claim should be rejected as being without merit. 4.33 On 24 May 2013, the State party requested the Rapporteur on new complaints and interim measures of the Committee to lift the request for interim measures made on behalf of the complainants and submitted further observations in the present case. It reiterates that the main claim of the complainant before the Committee appears to be based on his concern that his case has not been properly investigated by the State party authorities. In this connection, the State party notes that in its previous observations, it outlined the comprehensive domestic processes undertaken to consider the claims of the complainants, which included a review of the merits, a judicial review and an examination of the numerous requests for ministerial intervention. 4.34 Finally, the State party notes that on 24 January 2013, the complainant’s son lodged an application for a partner visa and has been issued a bridging visa to permit him to remain lawfully in the State party until his application is finally determined. Complainants’ comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 5.1 In reply to the State party’s observations on 14 June 2013, the complainants requested that they not be removed from the State party until a decision is adopted by the Committee concerning their case. 5.2 The complainants maintain that not all information submitted by them at the domestic level has been given due “attention and weight” by the national authorities. In this connection, they submit that the information referred to by the State party concerning the complainant’s wife’s claims about the forced abortion and forced insertion of an IUD has never been intended by them to be part of the present protection visa process. 5.3 As to the State party’s reference to the independent medical assessments of the main complainant and his wife, the complainants point out that these assessments are of no relevance. For example, since the assessments took place, the complainant’s wife has had surgery and ongoing treatment for thyroid cancer. In addition, the respective medical assessments were conducted in less than 15 minutes (for the complainant and his wife together) and were conducted with an interpreter. No examination was conducted and the assessment was based on reports only. 5.4 On 8 July 2013, the complainants submitted further comments. They note that the complainant’s son was a minor at the time of the initial application for a protection visa and therefore was included in it, together with the main complainant and his wife. The complainant’s son has since got married and applied to be included on his wife’s recently granted permanent residency visa and therefore is no longer part of the present complaint. Consequently, the complainant’s son is not included and referred to in the present comments. 5.5 Further, the main complainant made no claims of persecution on behalf of his wife in his application to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship for a protection visa, or in his complaint lodged with the Committee, as she is his wife and she travelled to the State party with him; as required, information about her was included in the application. In this connection, the complainants explain that the information about her was provided to the 11