CAT/C/51/D/434/2010 from detention, did not indicate the location of the detention centre, or provide any other pertinent information relating to his claim. In the assessment, it noted that country information states that the availability of fraudulent documents in China, including summonses, is widespread and therefore did not consider weight should be given to those documents. 4.21 The State party reiterates that the decision not to grant the complainant a protection visa has been properly determined according to Australian law. It notes that the domestic legal system in the State party offers a robust process of merits and judicial review, as well as avenues for administrative appeal. It reiterates that the Tribunal affirmed the conclusions of the initial decision maker that the claims of the main complainant lacked credibility. He had access to and sought judicial review of the decision of the Tribunal. His eight subsequent requests for ministerial intervention, in which he advanced various arguments in support of his claim to remain in the State party, have been carefully considered. In addition, the State party notes that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship initiated a further request for ministerial intervention of its own accord upon receiving the communication, in order to consider the new claims advanced on behalf of the complainant’s wife. 4.22 The State party submits that in this case, no significant error or abuse of process is revealed that would warrant the Committee issuing a different decision to that which has been duly reached. 4.23 It maintains that the complainant’s claims and evidence have been considered in good faith and found not to enliven the State party’s obligations under the Convention, the Convention on the Status of Refugees or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, since it was not accepted that he practised Christianity while in China. In addition, even if the complainant were a committed Christian, as a general follower he could practise his faith with relative freedom within China. The State party reiterates that at the domestic level the main complainant has been inconsistent with regard to his evidence about his activism in the Christian underground church in China. If his claims to be a member of a church are accepted, then it is likely that his primary role involved the provision of a communal space to facilitate church gatherings. Moreover, he has not provided any further evidence of his membership or role in his church in Fujian province. 4.24 Furthermore, the State party notes that the Refugee Review Tribunal also considered independent country information, such as a contemporary report on international religious freedom by the Department of State of the United States of America, which observed that “perhaps 2.5 per cent [of the population] worships in Protestant house churches that are independent of government control”.10 The Tribunal acknowledged that there were many instances where the Chinese authorities required registration or State sanction of religious organizations. However, in respect of Fujian province, the Tribunal noted that “the official religious policy is applied relatively liberally in Fujian although there have been occasional crackdowns on house churches and “underground” Catholics”. Moreover, although the complainants submitted a country report from Amnesty International that notes incidences of torture taking place in China as a result of membership of certain religious organizations, the State party submits that the information provided in this report is limited and generalized and does not provide evidence of a foreseeable, real and personal risk of the authors being subjected to torture. 10 United States Department of State, International Religious Freedom Report 2005, available from http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2005/51509.htm. 9