CAT/C/51/D/434/2010 4.13 In the context of the first decision of the Tribunal, the State party notes that after reviewing his written submissions and taking oral evidence, the Tribunal rightly gave the complainant the benefit of the doubt and accepted that he was a Christian and had been a member of an underground church in China, even though he displayed a very limited knowledge of that faith. However, the Tribunal rejected his claim that he was a “particularly key member in the underground church” or that he was the target of persecution by the Chinese authorities. Despite numerous claims that he had been interrogated and detained by the local Public Security Bureau for periods of several weeks, which the complainant cited as evidence of the interest of the Chinese authorities in him, the Tribunal noted that he left China with apparent ease in June 2004. When the Tribunal put this to him, he was unable to explain why this was the case, if he was (as claimed) a key member of an underground church who had been tortured by the authorities. The State party further notes that the complainant claimed that his employees only revealed his true role in the underground church to the authorities after he left China and that a subpoena had been issued for his arrest should he return. When the Tribunal questioned him on how he came to know about the subpoena, he explained that he had discussed the matter with his mother over the telephone. The Tribunal pointed out that this was a very sensitive matter to discuss over the telephone and was not satisfied the claim was truthful. The Tribunal further noted a lack of evidence to substantiate his claims. It found it implausible that, despite claims of repeated interrogations and detention by the local authorities, the complainant did not make attempts to relocate his home or business and continued to conduct secret church services there. Taking these factors into account, the Tribunal upheld the original decision not to grant the complainant a protection visa. 4.14 Following the decision of the Federal Magistrates Court to remit the case to the Tribunal in order to consider whether the main complainant would practise Christianity on his return to China, a reconstituted Tribunal conducted a new hearing with respect to the complainant’s claims. In this connection, the State party points out that the Tribunal gave the complainant an opportunity to read through the record of the first hearing with the assistance of an interpreter and to correct any errors. The only clarification he made was with respect to a question about who baptized Jesus. Furthermore, the reconstituted Tribunal did not accept that the complainant was a member of a Christian underground church in China. In this regard, the State party notes that religious beliefs are deeply personal and are not readily subject to tests in courts or tribunals; however, the Tribunal found the complainant’s knowledge of Christianity to be superficial and considered that he gained that knowledge through attending a church in Australia. For example, he knew little about the differences between the official and unofficial churches in China, he did not know that Bibles are available for sale in China, nor did he know how Christianity differs from other religions. The State party also points out that the Tribunal noted the inconsistency between his initial claim to be a key activist and his subsequent claim to be only a supplier of premises and money. The Tribunal did not accept that the main complainant was arrested, detained or questioned on account of his religious beliefs in 2004, on the basis that he left China without difficulty in June 2004, when country information indicated there were strict departure controls for persons with adverse records held by the Public Security Bureau. Neither did the Tribunal accept his explanation that bribing an official was sufficient to ensure easy departure, if he were in fact a key activist in whom Chinese authorities were interested, given the “highly risky and expensive” nature of doing so. Taking into account all of the above information, the reconstituted Tribunal decided not to grant the main complainant a protection visa. 4.15 The State party maintains that the Tribunal carefully considers and examines all applications for protection visas. In support of this, the State party further notes that available statistics from the financial year 2011–2012 indicate that China was the country from which Australia received the highest number of applications for protection visas from 7