CAT/C/61/D/725/2016 of his second ministerial intervention request, the decision maker acknowledged that he had been through great hardship in his life during the civil war in Sri Lanka, like many other Tamils, and that his traumatic experiences had had an impact on his mental health. The decision maker took note of the psychiatrist’s report, which had been based on information provided by the complainant, but found that there was no information to indicate he would be denied access to mental health services/facilities in Sri Lanka. 4.14 The State party acknowledges that complete accuracy is seldom to be expected by victims of torture.17 Mental health is a factor taken into consideration by domestic decision makers in forming views on an asylum seeker’s credibility. For example, although he had not raised mental health claims during his protection visa application, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection decision maker acknowledged that “when assessing credibility, an officer must be sensitive to the difficulties often faced by asylum seekers”.18 The decision maker also found the complainant’s claim of sexual abuse to be not credible, owing to the significant delay between the complainant lodging his protection visa application and raising the claim; and because the complainant’s claim of experiencing harm from officers of the Criminal Investigation Department had not previously been found to be credible. The decision maker found that “the frequency of the inconsistencies coupled with the applicant’s frequent adjustment of his testimony whenever adverse information was put to him, leaves [the Department] with questions around the applicant’s general credibility and unsatisfied about the credibility of his claims”. Furthermore, the complainant had claimed before the Refugee Review Tribunal that Criminal Investigation Department officers had harmed and threatened to harm him, a claim that the Tribunal did not accept. As such, the decision maker did not consider it reasonable to accept the additional claim that he had been sexually assaulted during the alleged interrogation by the Criminal Investigation Department. 4.15 On 12 November 2015, the Federal Court of Australia dismissed the complainant’s application for interlocutory relief pending a judicial review of the decisions by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection not to refer the second ministerial intervention request to the Minister and to refuse the complainant a protection visa. On 23 November 2015, he subsequently discontinued his application to appeal those departmental decisions. 4.16 Furthermore, the State party clarifies the issue of the new evidence regarding the incident that took place at the university on 11 November 2011 and the new claim regarding injuries sustained by the complainant, as well as of new evidence regarding harassment and assault from the Tamil Tigers and Criminal Investigation Department officers. The complainant has provided further evidence to support his claim that, on 11 November 2011, a group of people he could not identify attacked the university where he worked. This evidence includes letters from the Millar Sports Club in Sri Lanka, a student of the university at the time of the incident, the author’s father (endorsed by the Grama Niladhari and counter signed by the Divisional Secretariat, Koralaipattu, Valaichenai) and the complainant’s mother. He also provided a medical certificate, dated 1 March 2012, which notes an abrasion and recommends rest for the period of 13-16 November 2011. The latter was provided in support of the new claim that he had been injured during the attack on the university and is consistent with his claim that he had been interviewed by police until the following night and only attended hospital after the police had released him. 4.17 The decision maker for the protection visa application and the Refugee Review Tribunal accepted that the incident at the university had occurred and that the windows of one of the buildings had been broken. The Department of Immigration and Border Protection assessed the new evidence and concluded that, while the four letters support the accepted fact that the university had been vandalized, there was no information in the letters that was specific to the complainant to indicate he had suffered, or would suffer, harm as a 17 18 Communication No. 21/1995, Alan v. Switzerland, decision of 8 May 1996, para. 11.3. The decision maker also had access to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Eligibility Guidelines For Assessing The International Protection Needs Of Asylum Seekers From Sri Lanka guidance which states “[asylum seekers] may experience serious difficulties, technical and psychological …”. 7