CAT/C/52/D/455/2011 Commissioner for Refugees oversees and scrutinizes the removal process, which reinforces the integrity of the process. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 1 April 2013, the complainant submitted her comments on the State party’s observations. With regard to the State party’s claim that the original medical report was not submitted, the complainant refers to her counsel’s letter to the Minister for Migration, dated 11 March 2011, to which a copy of the medical report was attached in support of her claim of fear of being tortured if returned to China, and in which it is indicated that the original document was available from the complainant at her place of detention (Villawood Immigration Detention Centre), should the Ministry wish to obtain it and that the hospital where she had been treated after the injury has a record of said treatment. The complainant claims that the State party made no effort to authenticate the document, despite her counsel’s indication as to the availability of the original, and she questions the State party’s genuine attempt to duly verify the evidence she provided. The complainant furthermore attached the original document with an accredited translation of the medical report to her comments. According to the translation, the complainant was beaten with an electric baton, she suffered skin lacerations in the ending section of her left index finger as well as nail loss, the wound was treated by debridement and stitches. 5.2 As to the State party’s claim about the lack of sufficient evidence to substantiate her claim of fear of being tortured if returned to China, the complainant states that, although she had not provided the medical report to the Immigration Department during the protection visa application process, she had submitted it with her application for ministerial intervention to the Minister for Migration in 2011. Given that the State party did not attempt to investigate the authenticity of the document, its presumed fake nature is deceiving. She states that she did not submit the document earlier because she did not know that she could use it as evidence in furthering her case. It was only in 2011, after having been advised by counsel that she became aware of the importance of the document for her protection visa application. 5.3 Regarding the State party’s claim about the lack of intention relating to the injury to her finger, the complainant states that the State party never attempted to clarify the matter with her directly. The State party also failed to interview L.D.Z. about her statement in favour of the complainant and it also erred in concluding that the complainant would not risk torture if returned to China because L.D.Z., who holds a prominent position within the Tien Tao organization in Sydney, was not tortured during her visit to China. She states that the Chinese authorities did know about L.D.Z.’s link to Tien Tao at the time she visited China. 5.4 The complainant attached to her comments a statement by L.D.Z., dated 31 January 2013. In the statement, L.D.Z. claims that she has known the complainant since August 2005 as a member of the Tien Ci Holy Dao Association. She states that at the complainant’s request, she visited her children during a trip to China in January 2011. She claims that shortly after the visit, she was questioned by the Chinese police about her relationship with the complainant, who was referred to as the enemy of China because of her religious beliefs. L.D.Z. was warned not to approach the complainant’s family again. L.D.Z. further states that the Chinese authorities were not aware of her link to Tien Tao religion. 5.5 Lastly, the complainant states that the RRT decision reflects a lack of knowledge about the treatment Tien Tao practitioners receive in China. If L.D.Z.’s statement is deemed correct, it is logical to conclude that the complainant would, beyond mere theory, risk torture if returned to China. The State party failed to properly consider the complainant’s protection visa application and has violated article 3 of the Convention by failing to 6