CAT/C/51/D/434/2010 been made. A court considers whether the decision has been made according to the law and does not consider the merits of an application. If a court finds that there has been an error, the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal and allocated to another member for assessment.15 Therefore, the complainants submit that the neither the Federal Magistrates Court, nor any higher court, have any jurisdiction to review the merits of the complainant’s case. 5.17 Furthermore, the main complainant submits that he is able personally to name at least five people from Fujian province who have been granted protection by the State party in the last decade on the grounds of religious persecution for their Christian faith. 5.18 Finally, the complainants reiterate that the main complainant has provided evidence, through statements of support, of his past persecution by the Chinese authorities. He was forced to join a “study class”, organized by the communist Government, was continually harassed by Chinese officials and was sent to a detention camp, where he experienced both mental and physical abuse resulting in permanent damage. For example, he was beaten by police, as well as by inmates and guards in the prison. His jaw was fractured during his arrest in 2004. In this connection, the complainants reiterate that a detention warrant was issued in the main complainant’s name in February 2010. In addition, the complainants reiterate that according to the psychiatric reports of 2010 and of 2013, due to his deteriorated mental health, the main complainant is advised not to travel. 5.19 In light of the above, the complainants maintain that the main complainant’s claims under the Convention are admissible and well founded. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 6. Preliminarily, the Committee notes the submission provided by the complainants on 8 July 2013 that the complainant’s son, Da Huang, is no longer part of the present complaint. In these circumstances, the Committee decides to discontinue examination of the present communication, insofar as it concerns the complainant’s son. Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.2 The Committee notes that in the instant case the State party has recognized that the main complainant and his wife have exhausted all available domestic remedies, as required under article 22, paragraph 5 (b) of the Convention. 7.3 The Committee further takes note of the State party’s argument that the communication should be declared inadmissible as manifestly unfounded. 7.4 Concerning the complainants’ claim under article 16 of the Convention relating to their expulsion in light of their health, the Committee recalls its prior jurisprudence that the aggravation of the condition of an individual’s physical or mental health by virtue of a deportation is generally insufficient, in the absence of additional factors, to amount to 15 14 A reference is made to communication No.416/2010, Ke Chun Rong v. Australia, decision adopted on 5 November 2012, para. 5.5.