CAT/C/51/D/387/2009 considered that when a person can relocate to another part of the country, article 3 of the Convention is not violated.5 4.8 During the asylum procedure, the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) took into account that the complainant was a member of the UNP and had been involved in the JSS and may have, on occasion, been harassed by his political opponents; but it was not convinced that this amounted to persecution within the meaning of the Refugee Convention. The RRT considered that the JVP was not particularly interested in the complainant and that the chances of him being persecuted for his political opinion if he were returned to Sri Lanka were remote. The RRT considered that the numerous threats that the complainant allegedly received from Mr. L.A. did not result in any concrete act. As for the recruitment, the RRT did not find this allegation credible, as a party would not have any advantage in forcefully recruiting someone who would never show allegiance to it. 4.9 The State party points at the inconsistencies between the information provided in the protection visa application and that provided at the RRT hearing. The complainant explained at the time that the divergences were linked to his mental state at the time of his first application. The State party notes, however, that according to the psychological report provided by Foundation House on 8 February 2009, the complainant’s anxiety and depression were exacerbated by events in immigration detention, such as visa refusals and the prospect of repatriation. The State party also notes a series of inconsistencies and omissions in the complainant’s case, including with regard to events of intimidation that he reported for the first time in his third request for ministerial intervention on 27 May 2009. There are also discrepancies concerning the complainant’s disclosure — to the Australian authorities during the asylum procedure and to the psychologist of Foundation House, as contained in the second report dated 25 October 2009 — of how he obtained the visa to come to Australia. The State party notes on this aspect that this report was submitted with the complainant’s fourth request for ministerial intervention dated 15 February 2010, after the communication was submitted to the Committee against Torture. 4.10 The complainant relies on written testimony from his mother, taken from the information book of the Matale hospital police station. This testimony alleges that in February 2009, people invaded the house of the complainant’s mother in search of the complainant, and that the property was destroyed and his mother injured. However, this testimony differs from the testimony obtained from the information book of the Warakapola Police Station, which was provided to Australian Immigration authorities with the application for ministerial intervention dated 27 May 2009, which contains no evidence of Government involvement. The same incident was referred to in the psychological report submitted with the request for ministerial intervention on 15 February 2010, except that it states that the perpetrators were Tamil-speaking men. This detail concerning the alleged perpetrators was for the first time presented before the Committee. These discrepancies caused the State party to question the veracity of the allegations submitted by the complainant. The four-year lapse in time between the complainant’s original political activity and the claim of retributive activity on the part of Sri Lankan government officials towards the complainant’s mother brings into doubt the connection between the two sets of events. 4.11 As for the complainant’s allegations regarding a risk of torture by the LTTE, the State party considers it inadmissible because it is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention against Torture. The acts mentioned by the complainant cannot be considered torture under article 1 of the Convention as they would not be committed by, at the 5 The State party refers to Committee against Torture, communication No. 245/2004, S.S.S. v. Canada, decision adopted on 16 November 2005, para. 8.5. 7