CAT/C/52/D/455/2011 conduct an effective, independent and impartial investigation of the merits of her claims for a protection visa. Additional submissions from the State party and from the complainant 6.1 In a Note Verbale dated 11 October 2013, the State party dismissed the complainant’s claim that it failed to properly investigate her claims or to verify the evidence she had presented. It recalls that the burden of proof that there is a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture rests on her. Furthermore, the complainant enjoyed legal counsel for the preparation of her protection visa application and for her most recent application for ministerial intervention. 6.2 The State party submits that it did take steps to verify the hospital report by engaging a Mandarin-speaking officer. However, even if the hospital report was correct, it did not constitute evidence that the injury to her left index finger was linked to her being tortured as a result of her activities as a Tien Tao practitioner so as to fall within the purview of the definition of torture under article 1 of the Convention. Furthermore, the facts did not indicate that she would risk being tortured if returned to China. 6.3 Regarding L.D.Z.’s statement, the State party submits that the statement had not been sworn or affirmed before a person authorized to witness signatures, such as a lawyer or justice of the peace, that the contents were true. The same information was provided in a statement signed by L.D.Z. that was submitted with the complainant’s applications for ministerial intervention in 2010 and 2011. The information was found not credible and it did not constitute evidence that the complainant was of interest to the Chinese authorities or that she had been harassed by them due to her religious beliefs. Moreover, the RRT was not convinced that the complainant was a Tien Tao practitioner in China. For all those reasons, the State party submits that L.D.Z.’s statement does not support the complainant’s claims that she would risk being tortured if returned to China. 6.4 The State party further dismisses the complainant’s claim that decisions on merits are not reviewable in Australia and recalls that the RRT reviewed and dismissed the complainant’s claim on the merits, including her revised claims that she would risk being tortured if returned to China owing to her being a Tien Tao practitioner. Furthermore, the complainant’s claims were considered by the Immigration Department on three different occasions in the context of her applications for ministerial intervention. 6.5 The State party rejects the complainant’s assertion that little is known about the treatment of Tien Tao practitioners in China. Both the Immigration Department and the RRT relied on various sources of information in order to assess the credibility of the complainant’s claims. Based on that information and evaluation of the evidence that the complainant provided, they concluded that the complainant was not a Tien Tao practitioner in China, nor was she harassed or harmed by the Chinese authorities because of her religious beliefs. 7.1 On 18 February 2014, the complainant rejected the State party’s assertion that the burden of proof rests on her. She recalls that the requirement is for the complainant to provide substantial grounds to prove that there is a personal risk of being subjected to torture. In that regard, she states that she provided the Committee with a statement signed by L.D.Z., dated 31 January 2013, and the original medical report with an accredited translation. Those documents constitute sufficient evidence that she would risk being subjected to torture if returned to China. Thus, the above-mentioned requirement has been met. 7.2 The complainant further stresses that the State party has not addressed her claim that she was given misguiding advice by the migration agent before benefitting from legal counsel to prepare her protection visa application. 7